Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MELTON MOWBRAY AND SHEFFIELD) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Birmingham (Road Works Programme)

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the road works programme in the City of Birmingham will be cut as a result of the proposed reductions in Government expenditure.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The Government's road programme is planning to rise by about 8½ per cent. at constant prices to 1974–75. Principal road schemes in Birmingham or elsewhere depend on the rate at which local authorities throughout the country prepare individual schemes to grant-application stage.

Mr. Carter: Will the Under-Secretary give the House an assurance that any road scheme in the City of Birmingham which does not qualify for a Government grant will not have its loan sanction turned down by the Department? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the conservative council in the City of Birmingham has, in each year that it has been in office, reduced the amount spent on roads in the city?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that these are matters for the Birmingham City Council. We are discussing principal road schemes, and the initiative must lie with the city.

Public Developments (Compensation)

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement on his intention to improve the compensation rights of individuals affected by public developments.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I shall make a statement when we have completed our comprehensive review of the compensation code.

Mr. Lane: I am grateful for that reply. Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that there is strong feeling about the inadequacy of the present law to ensure justice for individuals, and that when the Government are ready to make their proposals there will be loud cheers at the keeping of yet another Conservative election pledge?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Conlan: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that when roads are constructed through large towns like Gateshead, for example, owner-occupiers are injuriously affected not so much by the roads running through their properties but by the value of their properties declining because of the close proximity of those roads?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I very much appreciate these problems. The City of Worcester, which I represent, has similar problems.

Private House Purchase (Loans)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities applied for extra home loans finance for purchase of private houses and how many were refused them during the current financial year; and if he will name those authorities in both categories.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Three hundred and nineteen authorities in


England have applied for an additional allocation. It has been necessary to refuse 123. Sixty-five which asked for a second allocation have also had to be refused. I will, with permission, list the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Allaun: I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. Is it not a fact that some of these local authorities with the worst problems find their quotas exhausted very early in the year? Will the Minister help them, particularly as they provide houses for people when the building societies will, unfortunately, often not entertain them?

Mr. Channon: Yes. I entirely agree with everything said by the hon. Gentleman. It is the greatest pity that his own Government reduced the amount so that only about a quarter—[Interruption.] It happens to be true. Hon. Gentlemen do not like it. It is the greatest pity that the Labour Government reduced the amount so that only about a quarter of the number of people who in 1964 got houses through local authority mortgage loans were able to do so in 1969.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Why does the hon. Gentleman's Department turn down the repeated application from South Shields where his party continuously complained of the late Government's cutting-down? Why does not his Department allow the application?

Mr. Channon: Because, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, we are operating this year under the allocation set down by his Government. When we have a chance the hon. Gentleman will find the situation will be very different.

Following is the information:


LOCAL AUTHORITIES WHICH HAVE RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION (196)


County Borough Councils


Birmingham
Manchester


Birkenhead
Northampton


Bolton
Oldham


Bradford
Portsmouth


Bristol
Rochdale


Burnley
St. Helens


Canterbury
Salford


Chester
Sheffield


Darlington
Southampton


Exeter
Southend-on-Sea


Gateshead
Stockport


Gloucester
Stoke-on-Trent


Grimsby
Sunderland


Huddersfield
Teesside


Kingston upon Hull
Torbay


Liverpool
Warley


Luton
York

London Borough Councils


Barnet
Kensington and


Bromley
Chelsea


Croydon
Kingston upon Thames


Greenwich
Newham


Islington
Southwark



Wandsworth

Borough Councils


Altrincham
Keighley


Andover
King's Lynn


Ashlon-under Lyne
Macclesfield


Barnstaple
Mansfield


Basingstoke
Nelson


Beccles
Penryn


Bedtord
Prestwich


Bodmin
Queenborough-in-


Chatham
Sheppey


Cheltenham
St. Albans


Chipping Norton
St. Ives (Hunts)


Cleethorpes
Sale


Crewe
Scunthorpe


Droitwich
Shrewsbury


Dunstable
Slough


Eastleigh
Spenborough


Fleetwood
Swinton and


Folkestone
Pendlebury


Glossop
Tamworth


Gosport
Tenterden


Gravesend
Thetford


Guildford
Truro


Haslingden
Watford


Heywood
Wisbech


Hyde

Urban District Councils


Aireborough
Frimley and


Alfreton
Camberley


Alton
Golborne


Ampthill
Hazel Grove and


Arnold
Bramhall


Ashington
Herne Bay


Atherton
Hoddesdon


Audenshaw
Hougliton-le-Spring


Basildon
Hoyland Nether


Bedworth
Ilminster


Beeston and
Irlam


Kirkby
Stapleford


Bentley-with-Arksey
Knottingly


Bletchley
Leatherhead


Bollington
Longdendale


Brandon and
Marple


Newquay
Byshottles


Brentwood
Ramsbottom


Burgess Hill
Redditch


Bushey
St. Neots


Cannock
Sandy


Cheshunt
Sowerby Bridge


Chigwell
Stanley


Chorleywood
Sutton-in-Ashfield


Colne Valley
Swanscombe


Conisbrough
Thornton Cleveleys


Corby
Trowbridge


Crawley
Urmston


Cuckfield
Winsford


Dawley
Wirral


Dorking
Witham


Farnborough

Rural District Councils


Abingdon
Belper


Barnard Castle
Bucklow


Basingstoke
Chailey

County Councils


Kent
West Sussex

LOCAL AUTHORITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN REFUSED AN ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION (123)


County Borough Councils


Barrow-in-Furness
Solihull


Bolton
Southport


Bournemouth
South Shields


Coventry
Wallasey


Leeds
Walsall


Newcastle upon Tyne
Warrington


Nottingham
Worcester


Rotherham

London Borough Councils


Hackney
Sutton


Harrow

Borough Councils


Bacup
Lymington


Beverley
Maidenhead


Calne
Mossley


Chelmsford
Newcastle-under


Clitheroe
Lyme


Crosby
Ossett


Darwen
Rye


Dukinfield
Taunton


Farnworth
Tewkesbury


Goole
Todmorden


Kendal
Truro


Lancaster
Weston Super Mare


Leigh
Winchester


Loughborough

Urban District Councils


Benfleet
Crompton


Bishop Auckland
Cudworth


Braintree &amp; Bocking
Denby Dale


Bredbury &amp; Romily
Droylsden


Brightlingsea
Elland


Broadstairs &amp;
Ely


St. Peters
Epping


Budleigh Salterton
Farnham


Burnham-on-Crouch
Felling


Consett
Felixstowe

Rural District Councils


Barrow-upon-Soar
Howden


Bingham
Isle of Wight


Bridge Blean
Lichfield


Bromyard
Malling


Caistor
Mitford and


Camelford
Launditch


Chapel-en-le-Frith
Repton


Cranbrook
Rotherham


Deben
St. Austell


Derwent
Tenterden


Dorking and Horley
Wellington


Dover
West Ashford


East Kesteven
Wortley


Gipping
Yeovil


Hollingbourn

SUPPLEMENTARY LIST OF AUTHORITIES WHICH RECEIVED ONE ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION BUT WERE REFUSED A SECOND (65)


County Borough Councils


Birkenhead
Manchester


Bradford
Northampton


Canterbury
St. Helens


Chester
Sheffield


Gateshead
Stockport


Huddersfield
Sunderland


Liverpool
Torbay


Luton

London Borough Councils


Bromley
Kensington and


Islington
Chelsea

Borough Councils


Andover
Macclesfield


Basingstoke
St. Ives


Cheltenham
Swinton and


Cleethorpes
Pendlebury


Eastleigh
Truro


Fleetwood
Wisbech


Gravesend

Urban District Councils


Aireborough
Hazel Grove and


Audenshaw
Bramhall


Beeston and
Kirkby


Stapleford
Knottingley


Brandon and
Longdendale


Byshottles
Newquay


Dawley
Thornton Cleveleys


Farnborough
Trowbridge


Golbourne
Urmston



Winsford

Rural District Councils


Belper
Maldon


Chanctonbury
Meriden


Chester
New Forest


Chester le Street
Pewsey


Depwade
Pocklington


Gloucester
Saint Ives


Leominster and Wigmore
Sedgefield


Tadcaster


Liskeard
Wantage


Long Ashton
Wokingham

Housing

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to increase the number of houses started in the public and private sectors, respectively.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): As I indicated in the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 25th November, measures already taken to help the building industry and our proposals for the reform of housing finance should benefit both the public and the private sectors.—[Vol. 809, c. 407.]

Mr. Allaun: The right hon. Gentleman will notice that the building trade employers are not very optimistic. Is it not obvious that if the Minister makes this really swingeing cut in subsidies there is bound to be a further reduction in council house building? Is that really what the Minister intends?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are starting from a pretty difficult foundation. House building output fell by 11 per cent. at constant prices in the last year of the previous Government. The decline in completions in 1969 was the worst since the war. There were 82,000 fewer houses started in 1969 than in 1964. So we are starting from a fairly difficult launching pad.

Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that on difficulty has been the squirrel-like attitude of some local councils in hoarding land and not releasing it for development?

Mr. Amery: I agree that this is one problem. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary is in touch with a number of local authorities at the present time to try to ease this problem. We are optimistic about the outcome of these talks.

Mr. Crosland: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that when many Tory councils reduced their council building programme last year they were carrying out the advice given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? Is he not further aware that we can make no sensible Projection about what is likely to happer to the housing programme until we have a statement amplifying his right hon. Friend's statement of 3rd November? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea when we are likely to get further details?

Mr. Amery: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I beg him to believe me when I say that he has totally misunderstood what my right hon. Friend said earlier. He should make a study of my right hon. Friend's words. I hope to begin conversations with local authority associations next week.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent consultations he has had with local authorities and other building agencies about future building programmes.

Mr. Amery: My Department keeps in close touch with housing authorities about their housebuilding programmes.

Mr. Eadie: But the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, in keeping in close touch with housing authorities or housing agencies, that there is at this moment substantial unemployment in the construction industry. Since his Government profess; to show some concern about this, would it not be more sensible to employ these construction workers on building houses?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the very difficult inheritance which we have received, and which the construction industry has received, from the previous Administration. I see signs of some pick-up in both civil engineering and private sector housing, and I am hoping that we shall presently see this reflected in the public sector as well.

Mr. Allason: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that selective employment tax adds about £135 to the cost of an average house?

Mr. Amery: Yes, my hon. Friend is right about that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No,


he is not."] As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to reduce it, so we shall reduce the cost of building and increase the demand for it.

Mr. Freeson: Referring to that part of the Question which deals with local authorities' housing programmes, is the Minister aware that the major cut-back in housing construction by local authorities has taken place since the advent of the Conservative Party to town halls up and down the country, which took advice from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? What action does he propose to take with his own friends in the town halls this side of the elections next May to get them to reverse their policies and enlarge the programmes again?

Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman will adopt perhaps a less partisan and more responsible attitude towards the problem, I think he will realise that he failed to secure co-operation with the local authorities. I believe that I shall succeed.

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the course of his review of housing finance, he will have regard to the fact that the incidence of the present housing subsidy structure for local authority schemes favours redevelopment rather than conversion and renovation of existing properties; and if he will take steps to review this arrangement.

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Jones: May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that in the review of housing he will have regard to the social advantages there clearly are of conversion and improvement schemes?

Mr. Amery: We regard improvement and conversion as central to our whole policy. There are four million houses which can be made comfortable homes but which, without this grant, could become slums.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no retrospective cutting down of subsidies already in payment on existing houses?

Mr. Amery: I shall be making a fuller statement in due course after my dis-

cussions with the local authorities on the course of our reform of housing finance, but it must be clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are going over from financing bricks and mortar to financing families who need the help.

Royal Parks (Pop Festivals)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give an assurance that the full expense and damage of future pop festivals in the Royal Parks will be met by the organisers and not become a charge to public funds.

Mr. Channon: Musical entertainments of all kinds in the Royal Parks are provided at public expense. There has been little damage, and my hon. Friend will know that the cost of clearing up after the recent pop festival was small.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not this an activity which should be financed by those responsible? Should not the public pay for their enjoyment? Will my hon. Friend consider the proposition that the organisers of such events should make a deposit in case of damage which may become a charge to public funds?

Mr. Channon: I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said, but the cost of clearing up was very small. In the case of military and brass band concerts in the Royal Parks, the approximate cost of fees to performers was £11,000. I shall bear in mind any views that my hon. Friend or anyone else puts to me.

Mr. Denis Howell: We on this side oppose these charges. Will the hon. Gentleman say how he conceives it possible to charge for admission to museums while taking a contrary view on this question?

Mr. Channon: I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can oppose these charges. It was his Government which imposed them.

British Waterways Board

Mr. John Wells: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what his future policy will be about enabling the British Waterways Board to retain more of its earnings in order to develop its capital resources and to acquire adjacent properties that will enable the board to operate on a more profitable basis.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The board Sir, has no surplus earnings. I am very willing to consider any proposition that would reduce the burden on the taxpayer or the extent of Government involvement.

Mr. Wells: Is it not true that the board may not have surplus earnings but it makes a profit in certain sectors and this has to be repaid to the Treasury, whereas a certain element of limited ploughback could enable it to acquire more properties and thereby make greater use of its assets and thus speed up the implementation of Conservative policy for the Waterways Board?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of this matter, knows that this proposal has been put forward by others, but I must tell him that while there were net profits on freight services of £46,000 in 1969, the net loss on running commercial waterways was £330,000.

Mr. John Wells: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a general direction to the British Waterways Board to show in its accounts in future the profits or losses on its pleasure-boat operation, and to publish a supplement to its accounts revealing these figures.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir. The British Waterways Board already publishes this information in its accounts.

Mr. Wells: While I am well aware of the figures which appear in Table D2 of the accounts last year, the word "net" creeps in in this category, and what the word "net" means is highly suspect. Will my hon. Friend look at this again with a view to having a proper break-down published, showing the depreciation of the boats, the repairs, the insurance and the administration that can rightly be ascribed to boats, as opposed to general administration?

Mr. Griffiths: I understand that the figures in the accounts are net of all properly attributable expenses and overheads and that they represent the true outcome of the board's pleasure boat operations. On my hon. Friend's suggestion, certainly I will look at this matter.

Local Authorities (Work-Studied Bonus Schemes)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue a circular to local authorities recommending them to extend work-studied bonus schemes for greater numbers of their employees, as recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, Report No. 29.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Yes, Sir. This is an appropriate time to do so since, with my right hon. Friend's encouragement, the Local Authorities Management Services and Computer Committee—L.A.M.S.A.C.—has taken steps to increase the extended advisory service it offers to local authorities setting up such schemes.

Mr. Moyle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not agree that this is a far better way of maintaining the hard-won peace in the local authority area than uttering hysterical cries about someone like Sir Jack Scamp when he undertakes a difficult job at short notice in the public interest?

Mr. Page: This encouragement to local authorities was under consideration long before the Scamp Report, and my right hon. Friend visited local authorities with this purpose in mind very shortly after coming into office.

Road Services

Mr. Fox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken, having regard to the provision of Section 135(2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to ensure that, in considering an application for a road service licence, the Traffic Commissioners will take full account of the failure of existing licence holders for similar services to provide the services required by the public; and if he will review the law relating to road service licences to give greater emphasis to the needs of the user rather than established operators.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The answer to the first part of the question is that the traffic commissioners do take account of any failure on the part of existing licence


holders. On the second part, we are already reviewing the licensing system generally.

Mr. Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that the failure of an operator to give an adequate service under licence not only effectively and permanently kills demand but is more than likely to result in the loss of a substantial number of passengers to the industry?

Mr. Griffiths: I am aware that the bus industry has problems. My right hon. Friend's review will take these matters into account, because we are anxious to ensure that this system is suitable for present-day needs.

Offensive Odours

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that his powers to take action to eliminate the nuisance caused by offensive odours are sufficient; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: Under the Public Health Acts it is the responsibility of the local authority to require, and of the courts to enforce, the abatement of offensive odours which are a nuisance.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the London Borough of Bexley to those provisions? Is he aware that in my area there is a major sewerage works which gives off a most distressing and nauseating stench? While it may not be harmful to health, it is certainly most inconvenient to my constituents.

Mr. Walker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. David Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is quite a widespread problem, and that in the Shrivenham Road area in my constituency people are plagued by smells from burning animal carcases? It really is a most horrible smell. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he should strengthen the powers and ensure that local authorities use those which they already have?

Mr. Walker: They have considerable powers and, likewise, the courts have

powers to enforce them. I am sure that the people in the area referred to by the hon. Gentleman should contact the local authority about this problem.

Luton Airport (Aircraft Noise)

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply he has sent to the letter from the Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise dated 18th November about the grant of planning approval at Luton Airport.

Mr. Graham Page: I have had a copy from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of my reply.

Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that when planning permission was granted to Luton our right hon. Friend expressed confidence that Luton would not cause increased disturbance by aircraft noise, but that Luton now proposes to increase night jet flight take-offs by 42 per cent. in the season?

Hon. Members: Reading!

Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend please take enforcement action against this breach, in the interests of the environment?

Mr. Page: This is a difficult point, because my right hon. Friend has no power to control either the number of flights or the number of passengers using the airport. He has made it clear to Luton Borough Council that we recognise that there is widespread concern about the effects of aircraft noise in the area, particularly to the east of the airport, as a result of the intensification of activities there. We have asked the council to have due regard to these effects and to the adequacy of airport facilities before entering into future commitments with airline operators.

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear that he is not aiding and abetting a low-down plan to limit the activities of Luton Airport?

Mr. Page: So far as my right hon. Friend wants to know and to have some influence on the increase of activities there, we are limiting the increase of


activities, but the real point is the long-term future of this airport, which must await the report from Roskill.

Mr. John Hall: Would my hon. Friend agree that aircraft noise is becoming an intolerable nuisance? Many of my constituents are suffering from the effects of over-flying not only from Luton but from London Airport. Is it not time that there was a national inquiry into the development and siting of present and future airports, and an inquiry into the effects of increasing noise on the wellbeing and welfare of people?

Mr. Page: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. Noise is now a very serious matter. My Department deals with it as best it can under planning laws and planning applications. We would like to consider whether there is any need for further control.

A64 (Malton Bypass)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is aware of the widespread concern over the delay in announcing a date for the start of the work on the Malton bypass scheme on the A64; and whether he has yet received the amended firm programme report.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I understand that the amended firm programme report will be submitted by the North Riding County Council by the end of the year. Once received, it will be considered urgently, and I hope that an announcement about a place in the programme will follow early in 1971.

Mr. Turton: Is my hon. Friend aware that for 32 years there has been pressure for this bypass, which would remove the congestion on this road? This proposal has been in the preparation pool for three years. Why is it dragging on like this, when everybody in the West and North Riding is anxious for it to be started as soon as possible?

Mr. Heseltine: I much appreciate the work that my right hon. Friend has put into this scheme. I hope that a possible announcement early in 1971 will help, but there have been redesign problems recently. We have to avail the solution of these, and ensure that the scheme stands up to the tests that we have to apply.

Clyde Estuary (Ocean Terminals)

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State f pr the Environment what will be the effect of the proposed cuts in public expenditure on the plans of the Clyde Port Authority to build ocean terminals on the Clyde Estuary.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I understand the authority's plans remain unchanged.

Mr. Lambie: May I take it from that reply that the Government will provide the necessary finance to enable the Clyde Port Authority to start immediately on the iron ore terminal which the Secretary of State for Scotland has now approved? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless the Scottish steel industry gets this terminal within the next 20 years it will fade away?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is much better than I at looking 20 years ahead. We must await the port authority's proposals, which we shall look at sympathetically.

Unfurnished Rented Accommodation (Premiums)

Mr. Torney: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to stop the practice of charging premiums upon unfurnished rented accommodation which is charged in addition to a weekly rent.

Mr. Channon: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to Part VII of the Rent Act, 1968, which makes it an offence to charge a premium for the grant, renewal or continuance of a protected tenancy.

Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware that t sere is a considerable racket in London at the moment whereby, in addition to the rent that a tenant wishing to take an unfurnished flat is asked to pay, he has to pay anything from £200 to £1,000 for what are called "fixtures and fittings", and, when he looks at the place, he often finds that the fixtures and fittings can be thrown out because they are absolute rubbish? In other words, is the Minister aware that landlords are placing conditions on tenancies, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Channon: I have already said that it is an offence to charge a premium. If


the hon. Gentleman knows of cases where this happens, I hope he will let me have details, although it is primarily a matter for local authorities to prosecute. My right hon. Friend is considering, following consultation with the Francis Committee, making it compulsory for tenants' rights to be put in their rent books as a matter of statute.

Ports Industry

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now completed his review of the management and operation of the ports; whether he has completed his plans for strengthening the Ports Council; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Osborn: Is it not vital that the individual ports should be run as viable commercial enterprises to a much greater extent? Has not the Ports Council a great rôle to play, as was envisaged in the 1964 Act?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, but it is not for the National Ports Council to run the ports. Obviously the council can and does help with advice, but matters of management are for the ports themselves.

Mr. Tinn: Before making his statement, will the Minister look at the tremendous expansion which has taken place on Teesside, which in terms of dry cargo handled is now the third largest port in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that this success has been largely due to excellent labour relations in this publicly-owned port?

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will look at the situation in all ports, whether privately-owned or publicly-owned, before making his statement.

Mr. Mulley: Does not the Minister agree that this matter has more urgency than the Government seem to attach to it? Surely before putting a proposal for a strengthened central body in the Conservative election manifesto, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite gave some thought to what they meant. Surely those in the ports industry, after more than six months, are entitled to know what the Government have in mind for the

industry. May we be told when we shall get this important statement?

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend is studying the matter carefully. He is not making precipitate decisions. He will make a statement as soon as he is able.

Traffic Offences (Automatic Disqualification)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to amend the Road Traffic Act, 1962, so that a person is not liable to automatic disqualification unless he has committed not less than three of the specified offences on three occasions within a period of three years.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir.

Mr. Osborn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the existing legislation has been interpreted a little harshly? There has been correspondence giving examples. Will he look at it again?

Mr. Griffiths: It is true that courts have discretion to mitigate the penalty of automatic disqualification if there are grounds for doing so having regard to all the circumstances. My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable in this matter, will understand that the courts in the end must determine the application of this rule.

Lambeth (Housing Finance)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional aid will be given to the London Borough of Lambeth for housing purposes in the next financial year.

Mr. Channon: I expect the borough to continue to receive special additional help under Section 5 of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967.

Mr. Lipton: That is a vague answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that with 7,600 people officially homeless in the Inner London area, three times the number 10 years ago, London's housing problem has now reached catastrophic dimensions? It is no use playing with the problem, as the Government seem to be doing. When shall we have less talk and more do?

Mr. Channon: Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House are


deeply concerned about London's housing problem. But I cannot possibly take from the hon. Gentleman the suggestion that this is vague. This is a provision in the Act passed by his right hon. Friends. If he thought it vague, why did he not say so at the time?

Mr. Allason: Are not right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House deeply concerned about conditions in London, including the Opposition Chief Whip, and cannot the Government give some hope that there will be considerable improvements over the appalling performance of the previous Government?

Mr. Channon: I very much hope that that will be the case.

Mr. Loughlin: It will not.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is a pessimist. My right hon. Friend has already taken action to try to solve this problem. As my right hon. Friend said on 3rd November, the present reforms of housing finance will mean that those areas where the housing problems are worst will get extra benefit.

Mr. Freeson: That will not operate until after 1972. The situation is getting worse. Lambeth is a notable exception. Is the Minister aware that most authorities in London in the last two or three years have been cutting back to a drastic degree on their housing programmes? Specifically, will he take action with the Sutton Borough Council to ensure—not request—that land is made available in Sutton to assist Lambeth Borough Council, and that similar action is taken—not requested—with other authorities round London?

Mr. Channon: I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman was doing when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were in office. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to imagine that, after six years of neglect of London's housing problem, by a magic wand we should cure it in six months.

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Maclennan: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions you have ruled that it is unsuitable for a Minister to reply to a Question by asking a question in turn. The last reply of the Minister was in the form of a rhetorical question. Is that acceptable?

Mr. Speaker: It was a rhetorical question.

Mid-Anglia

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make an official visit to mid-Anglia early in 1971.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have no plans for an official visit to mid-Anglia early in 1971.

Mr. Lane: Will my right hon. Friend remember that the future well-being of the Cambridge area depends upon the solution of difficult problems over roads, local government reform and general planning policy, and that if he or a colleague can find time to visit Cambridge and get a feeling of the situation for himself, he will be very welcome?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful for that suggestion.

Rents

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for renewing the provisions of the Rents (Control of Increases) Act beyond 1971.

Mr. Amery: None, Sir, but I shall be discussing with the local authority associations the limit on council rent increases arising from our proposals for the reform of housing finance.

Mr. Kaufman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is a totally deplorable answer? Does he not realise that, following the vague threats arising from the Secretary of State's policy, which will inevitably mean large rises in rents, for both private and council tenants, particularly in my constituency, this latest announcement, which he has made with such complacency, means that the only safeguard for tenants in the grading of, and ceilings on, rents, which the Labour


Government brought in and which, of course, his own party delightedly voted against, will now be removed?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member is making something of a mountain out of a molehill. Our proposals specifically provide that tenants who are in need will get rebates or allowances to cover their need.

Mr. Crosland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one is making a mountain out of a molehill on this, and that his right hon. Friend's statement on 3rd November was of the most profound importance, since it will affect the housing conditions of hundreds of thousands of people? He has told us that he is starting his discussions next week. Can he tell us, as this is a matter of the greatest urgency, when he will have concluded those and when he hopes to make a further statement to the House?

Mr. Amery: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of our proposals. I cannot say exactly when the conversations will end. After all, this is a two-way traffic. When we embarked upon them, we do not set a definite limit to them; we want to hear the advice which will be given to us by the borough associations, and this may last some weeks or some months. I cannot say yet, but, of course, I will report to the House as soon as I can do so.

Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among the other results of this Act has been an enormous increase in the number of slums, simply because the landlords, the owners, cannot afford to keep their property in repair?

Mr. Amery: I think that our reforms will enable authorities which are burdened with slums or serious overcrowding to have greater resources to deal with those problems.

Mr. Crosland: I must press the Minister on this. When his right hon. Friend made his statement on 3rd November, which I agree reflected Tory policy, he must have known what he was doing and have had some idea of the details in his mind. Is it really conceivable that the Minister now has no idea whether those discussions with the local authorities will

take two weeks or six months? If so, he should learn something about his job.

Mr. Amery: Looking back at the housing record of the last Administration, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues learned anything in six years. They seem to have learned nothing and to have forgotten nothing. Of course it would be quite wrong to say when conversations will end. When one starts a dialogue with other people, one does not set a time limit to it: one listens to their arguments and thrashes them out.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who, unlike the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden), represents many people who have—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to give notice, he should do it briefly and in the conventional way.

Mr. Kaufman: Well, in deference to you, Mr. Speaker, briefly and in the conventional way—

Mr. Speaker: In the conventional way: Mr. Kaufman.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to give notice that, in view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

Capital Programmes (Circular 2/70)

Mr. Idris Owen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Circular 2/70, Capital Programmes, issued by his department on 12th November.

Mr. Peter Walker: The arrangements announced in the circular to start next April give to local authorities greater freedom to make their own decisions. While the Government will continue to exercise control over the total amount local authorities may borrow, procedures will be simplified and for a large area of spending central control over detail will be relaxed.

Thamesmead (Sewage Sludge)

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to ensure that sewage sludge is not dumped on open


land a few hundred yards from residential properties on the Greater London Council's new housing development at Thamesmead; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: None, Sir. I am sure that in operating its disposal works the G.L.C. is mindful of its statutory obligation to discharge its drainage functions without creating a nuisance. Digested sludge, which is a harmless and substantially inoffensive liquid, was put on this land in an emergency, and I understand that the site would only be used for that purpose again if a similar need arose.

Mr. Wellbeloved: As that is a most unsatisfactory answer, would the hon. Gentleman do my constituents the courtesy of visiting Thamesmead and explaining to the tenants there that he will support the Greater London Council in depositing sewage sludge within 300 yards of occupied residential property? It is a disgraceful situation, and the Minister should be ashamed that he is not taking action to stop it.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman might address his remarks to the people who made it necessary for the sewage to be deposited on this particular land.

Mr. Ronald Brown: In view of the fact that the Greater London Council gave an undertaking to those of us who had discussions with it on its General Powers Bill that this could not conceivably happen, is it not a fact that it has shown us that we cannot take its word on any occasion? When its General Powers (No. 2) Bill comes up, I intend to stop it, because it has been thoroughly dishonest.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the G.L.C. will take full account of what the hon. Member has said.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a date for the publication of the White Paper on local government reform.

Mr. Peter Walker: It is intended to publish a White Paper in the New Year.

Mr. Montgomery: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but would he bear in mind that the five county

boroughs of the West Midlands are opposed to the Maud recommendation, and that as they had a drastic reorganisation in 1966 they feel that they should be exempt from any future reorganisation?

Mr. Walker: The boroughs concerned have certainly not hesitated to send me their views on this topic.

Mr. Crosland: Is it not rather curious that the Government can give us a fairly exact date for a White Paper on local government reorganisation but apparently can give us no date whatsoever for a statement on housing?

Mr. Walker: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should take the phrase "in the New Year" as being an exact date.

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the interests of local government staff will be safeguarded during the course of local government reform.

Mr. Peter Walker: The interests of local government staff adversely affected by local government reorganisation will be safeguarded, and once the Government's proposals for that reorganisation are announced I intend to enter into consultations with representatives of those likely to be affected concerning the nature of the safeguards.

Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister recognise that local authorities are already undergoing quite a severe shake-up as a result of the Local Authority Social Services Act, and that this is in some ways detrimental to recruitment of, for instance, medical officers of health? Does he not think that it might be as well to let local authorities get over this shakeup before they are saddled with another burden of reorganisation?

Mr. Walker: I do not consider it right to delay more than is necessary the proper reform of local government, but we will certainly ensure that local government staff are properly safeguarded.

Palace of Westminster (Facilities for Disabled Persons)

Mr. McElhone: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to make the Palace of


Westminster more accessible to disabled people, following the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

Mr. Channon: I am glad to say that disabled people can already get to the main public parts of the building by the use of existing lifts. I am looking into the possibility of providing still better access by way of ramps in Star Chamber Court. Special lavatory facilities have now been provided off the Lower Waiting Hall.

Mr. McElhone: While I pay tribute to the work which has already been started, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, as this was the building in which this wonderful piece of legislation was created, it is only right and proper that any further alterations should have the highest priority?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree, and the policy so far accords broadly with, and is anticipating, the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has examined proposals for the use, by local authorities, of estate agents for valuation and sales promotion of council houses; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: I understand that Birmingham City Council uses estate agents for this purpose. I welcome any initiative which helps to promote the sale of council houses.

Mr. Cockerham: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he really wants to sell council houses he could not do better than employ those who are professionally skilled in the job and who, additionally, can give mortgage advice? Will he advise local councils to follow that course?

Mr. Channon: Birmingham City Council has done an excellent job in this respect.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Are we to understand that local authorities are paying the usual rate of commission to estate agents for the sale of council houses?

Mr. Channon: This is a matter for the local authorities concerned, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consult them.

Office Development Control

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects his examination of the present system of office development control to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 7th December to my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat).—[Vol. 808, c. 44, 45.]

Royal Commission on the Environment

Mrs. Fenner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now review the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Environment; and if he will impose both a timetable and priorities upon its deliberations.

Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir. The Government are already free to ask for the Commission's advice on urgent problems, without denying it the freedom of deciding to which aspects of pollution it should attach priority.

Mrs. Fenner: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him to note my natural scepticism about delaying tactics like the setting up of Royal Commissions? May I seek his assurance constantly to bear in mind the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) at the time when this Commission was established, that what the public want is not advice, consultation or co-ordination but action?

Mr. Walker: I fully understand my hon. Friend's attitude to Royal Commissions in general. This one, however, is a perpetual Royal Commission which will be constantly reporting on various aspects of the problem.

Definitive Footpath Maps

Mr. Rooth: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment which counties sell definitive footpath maps to the public.

Mr. Graham Page: This information is not available in my Department, but definitive footpaths are being incorporated in Ordnance Survey Maps (1 in. and


1=25,000 series) as and when these are revised.

Mr. Booth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is difficult, if not impossible, for many people to exercise their right of access to many parts of the countryside unless they are able to purchase definitive footpath maps? Will he, therefore, approach county authorities to ensure that they sell definitive footpath maps relating to their areas?

Mr. Page: Definitive footpath maps are available for inspection at county council and county district offices and copies are available at many public libraries. A large number of counties provide this facility.

Mr. Marten: As many footpaths are utterly out of date, are hundreds of years old and were originally designed for people walking from one job to another, which they no longer do, may I ask what the Government propose to do about footpaths which go straight across fields which farmers wish to plough up?

Mr. Page: This matter was recently considered under Statute. I do not know whether another examination is necessary now.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great public concern about the number of footpaths which are illegally closed and that the right of access to the countryside should be protected in all circumstances? Will he bear that in mind?

Mr. Page: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he will appreciate my concern over this from a previous honour I had, of being chairman of the Pedestrians' Association.

Gloucester (Railway Stations)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when a decision is likely to result from the discussions which have been taking place between the British Railways Board and his Department, with regard to the re-siting of Gloucester Eastgate and Central Stations at Barnwood; and if he will give an assurance that this matter will be dealt with as speedily as possible.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Discussions about road access have been satisfactorily com-

pleted. The decision to proceed further is one for British Rail.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that both Departments concerned were approached as long ago as 1968 and that, as the outcome of these discussions concerns the whole road system within the City of Gloucester, it is important that we have a definite decision one way or the other as soon as possible?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that the board of British Rail is well aware of this and will mike an announcement as soon as it can.

Mr. David Stoddart: Is it possible for the Minister to say what effect this will have on line working at Swindon? May we have an assurance that the trade unions and workers concerned will be consulted about this project before it goes ahead?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that British Rail kill follow its practice of consulting the trade unions. On the first part of that supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman might care to table a Question.

A6 Diversion, Hazel Grove

Mr. Normanton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for progressing the A6 diversion in the Hazel Grove area.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: My right hon. Friend hopes to publish proposals for the line of the Hazel Grove bypass during late 1971.

Mr. Normanton: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I again draw his attention to the fact that there is a considerable sense of frustration felt by people who live in the district and by the very large volume of traffic which flows through it? May I earnestly hope that the Government will give urgent consideration to imposing the maximum priority for the completion of this work?

Mr. Heseltine: We are well aware of the importance of devising a properly integrated system, and this is bound to take some time.

Derelict Land (Statistics)

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will


now review the definition of derelict land, and the method by which it is recorded for official statistics, in view of frequent authoritative representations of underestimation of this information.

Mr. Graham Page: Proposals for assembling at regular intervals factual information on a wider basis than at present are under discussion with the local authority associations.

Miss Fookes: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he be as quick as possible and complete this within, say, six months?

Mr. Page: I think we shall be ready a lot earlier than that, though I would not like to give a specific time.

Mr. Cant: Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend whether, in considering this question of derelict land, an artificial distinction is made between man-made dereliction and natural dereliction? Will he extend the 75 per cent. grant to both areas, particularly in the case of older industrial areas like the City of Stoke-on-Trent?

Mr. Page: For the record, it is 85 per cent. for development areas. I would rather see this go on expanding, as it is now, than try to extend it to other land until we see really good progress on the removal of these heaps.

Empty Property (Rating)

Mr. Kinsey: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received concerning the levying of rates on empty property; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend has received a few representations on this subject, almost equally divided between those for greater stringency and those for greater flexibility than in the existing statutory provisions. We are examining this matter in the current review of local government finance.

Mr. Kinsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am delighted with that reply because of the difficulties that local authorities face in dealing with this problem? Authorities are anxious not to hit house building but would like to see flexibility exempting bonus—but they do not want

to see void shops and office property in their areas not having rates levied on them. Will he be examining this question of void shops with no fronts to them and the need for a better definition?

Mr. Page: We believe that the locally-elected authorities are the best people to decide whether or not to adopt these procedures in their areas.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable point in drawing a distinction between the two different types of property? Since only 95 councils have used their permissive powers, will he make it compulsory for them to charge full rates and not half-rates?

Mr. Page: No. There is no intention of making this compulsory. As I said, we believe that the local authorities are the best people to judge whether or not this is required in their areas.

Housing Standards

Mr. Idris Owen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will institute a departmental study of the advantages of low-cost housing as an alternative to the Parker-Morris Standard imposed on local authorities at present, which puts the cost of council housing beyond the reach of the lower-paid.

Mr. Amery: I have carefully considered departing from the Parker-Morris Standards but have concluded that any resulting savings would be more than offset by earlier obsolescence. Under our proposed reform of housing finance, rent rebates will be available to tenants who cannot afford a fair rent for the accommodation they need.

Mr. Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not always in the best interests of the young people whom we are trying to house to offer them homes which it is beyond their means to afford, for that will inevitably lead to a continuation of the ever-burdensome high level of subsidisation which the nation will eventually not be able to afford? Does he agree that everybody likes to have homes of a more luxurious character?

Mr. Amery: I think my hon. Friend will accept that it would be a mistake in the public sector to lower standards


and produce obsolescence earlier than we can avoid. There is a good deal of building in the private sector below the Parker-Morris Standards, and this may meet the needs of the kind of families he has in mind, particularly as we improve mortgage opportunities.

Mr. Leonard: Is the Minister aware that the first part of that answer will be widely welcomed on this side of the House? Is he also aware that the proper way to assist lower-paid people with housing is to accept that the level of Government assistance going towards housing should be increased rather than reduced by the £200 million foreshadowed in his right hon. Friend's statement?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman should turn his awareness to the fact that the rent rebate scheme which we propose will follow that which has been adopted by a number of local authorities already and, as we develop it, will meet the needs of those who really are in need, instead of calling on the taxpayer to subsidise those who are not.

Private Cars (Hiring)

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to the proposal that the licence granted to private car owners should permit the use of the vehicle for private hire purposes with a view to the supplementation of public transport facilities and a more effective use of economic resources, including road space.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: We are examining the public service vehicle licensing system generally, including its relevance to small vehicles.

Mr. Jones: Will not my hon. Friend agree that schemes of protection for public services are completely outdated in present-day circumstances, and although we have had a number of reviews of rural services—we have had three of them—has not the time come to stop reviewing and come to some decision?

Mr. Griffiths: I am well aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers, and that is precisely why we are looking very carefully at the whole licensing system in order to find out whether it is flexible enough, particularly in the rural

areas. My right hon. Friend certainly intends to make some progress in the matter.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not the hon. Gentleman also aware of the very serious abuses of private hire schemes, and the need to pay attention to the Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) for greater control?

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Member has examples of abuses, I am sure that he will do his best to put them forward precisely.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now give a date for the publication of the Green Paper on local government finance.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am hoping to publish the Green Paper in spring, 1971, but I cannot yet give a date.

Mr. Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great dissatisfaction felt by many people with the present rating system because it is unfair, in that it does not take account of a person's ability to pay?

Mr. Walker: The Green Paper will certainly include comments on the present system, and look at all possible alternatives.

Mr. Crosland: is the Minister aware that if people are dissatisfied now with the rating system they will be a great deal more dissatisfied with it next spring when, as a result of his Rate Support Grant Order, most people's rates will go up by an average of 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the £?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the last two years of his Government the total amount to be raised by rates increased substantially faster than it had for many years.

Housing Aid Centres

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to encourage local authorities to establish within housing departments a housing advisory service.

Mr. Amery: It is my intention to send a memorandum to selected local authorities in the near future. This will recommend the establishment of comprehensive housing aid centres, wherever they are needed, by local authorities or by voluntary organisations or by a combination of the two.

Mr. Archer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but would he not agree that there is no difficulty here, that local authority housing lists could be substantially relieved if suitable families were advised of alternative possibilities? Is this really beyond the resources of local authorities?

Mr. Amery: I agree with the hon. Gentleman: I do not think that this is an insuperable problem. We have to stimulate the interest of public authorities. Some of them, like Lambeth, have already done a first-class job of work, but there are differences of opinion whether the housing aid centres should be within or outside the local authority. I think that it is a good thing that there should be pilot schemes in different parts so that we can learn in the light of experience.

Industrial User Rights

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the existing legislation regarding industrial user rights.

Mr. Graham Page: My right hon. Friend does not have in mind any general review of industrial user rights. However, the Use Classes Order is under review. He will, of course, be glad to consider any particular point which the hon. Member wishes to bring to his attention.

Mr. Cox: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that under present legislation a local authority cannot refuse planning permission once an industrial site has acquired industrial user rights even though an area can have completely changed in character since the site was first developed? Will he therefore consider granting powers to local authorities so that they can judge each application on its merits and its suitability to the site concerned?

Mr. Page: This would involve a change in planning law, but I will certainly look into the matter.

Council House Tenants

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to provide that people will not be debarred from remaining or becoming tenants of council houses on grounds of income.

Mr. Amery: No, Sir.

Mr. D. Stoddart: That answer was expected, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, and advise those of his hon. Friends who have been saying that they will flush out rich tenants of council houses, that that would be an anti-social act? Will he now give an assurance that tenants will not be discriminated against on any ground at all?

Mr. Amery: I am not aware that authorities do evict tenants in such circumstances. Councils are generally extremely reluctant to terminate tenancies other than in most exceptional circumstances.

Captain W. Elliot: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, originally, council houses were provided for people in the lower income scale, and ought not that to be considered?

Mr. Amery: My hon. and gallant Friend is quite right.

Mr. Marsh: Would not the Minister agree that the supplementary question asked by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) is typical of a mind deeply embedded in a bygone age? Would he also agree that today no one believes that council estates should be single-class areas which are based purely on lower income groups?

Mr. Amery: It is very agreeable and entertaining to find the right hon. Gentleman advocating subsidy for those who are well off.

Greater London Council Parks

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will receive representations from the South London Save Our Parks Committee on Greater London Council proposals for the transfer of Greater London Council parks to the boroughs, which


require action by him to bring them into effect.

Mr. Graham Page: The Committee's views on the G.L.C. scheme were submitted last year and were before my right hon. Friend when he decided to consult local authorities affected on a draft Order to give effect to the scheme with certain modifications.

Mr. Moyle: As those views were made to the Secretary of State's predecessor and not to the Secretary of State himself, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good thing if his right hon. Friend heard from their own lips what people in South London thought about this scheme? In view of the upward pressure on rates and the difficulty there will be for sports clubs in making use of pitches, will he reconsider the decision and receive a deputation?

Mr. Page: No, Sir. I think that the views have been well conveyed to my right hon. Friend, and where there appears to be a restriction on the availability of games pitches and there may be loss of central booking facilities, that case has been excluded from the Order. I am thinking of Finsbury Park.

Air Pollution

Mrs. Kellett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instruct the Warren Spring Laboratory and the Alkali Inspectorate to make available to local planning authorities any information which they may have on the incidence of air pollution by sulphur and other gases within the boundaries of each planning authority.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Alkali Inspectorate is always ready to help local authorities with advice, though it cannot divulge information obtained in confidence, and the Warren Spring Laboratory is in regular touch with some 500 authorities about local levels of air pollution.

Mrs. Kellett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that where destruction of trees and hedgerows has occurred and pollution is suspected it would be of great assistance in pinpointing the cause, and, therefore, finding a cure, if levels, particularly maximum levels, could be given to local authorities and others concerned?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I hope that local authorities will take advantage of the service which is available to them. It is for this and similar reasons that I have decided to strengthen the Alkali Inspectorate.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I understood the hon. Gentleman to be raising his point of order later.

Mr. McNamara: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, that is a different point of order; that is a treat in store.
Can you inform me, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food has asked your permission to answer Written Questions No. 99 and No. 101?

Mr. Speaker: If the Minister had done so, I should announce it to the House at this moment.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order. I am sorry to delay the House on this; point, but it is a point which I believe is of fundamental importance to the House and to hon. Members concerned. In the debate on the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme on 23rd July, 1970, I intervened in a speech that the Minister of Agriculture was making and said this at the end of my intervention:
Will the right hon. Gentleman make his statement on the future of the White Fish Authority by the end of this year?
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
It is likely that by the end of this year I shall make a statement. In fact, I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking now that I make a statement before the end of this year about the White Fish Authority and other bodies, as I think it is very important that the authority and the people who work for it, as well as the fishing industry, should not be kept … dangling, if that is the right word, for too long."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 892.]
On later occasions my hon. Friends and I pressed the Minister on this matter. On 27th October, 1970 he said this:
I have already undertaken to make a statement about the White Fish Authority before the end of the year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 14.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, that is not a point of order. It is a point which can be raised during questions on Business tomorrow.

Mr. McNamara: Further to my point of order. There are two Questions down today for Written Answer which seem to be specifically on this point. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how hon. Members can be protected. Will you state how you will help to protect hon. Members when Ministers who have given undertakings to make a statement to the House dodge their undertakings on an issue which is of vital importance to us and to our constituents? The Minister knows full well that the only day which is available for him to make a statement about this matter this year will be tomorrow and that tomorrow the majority of hon. Members with fishing interests will be visiting the fish dock installations in Hull. This is a vitally important matter for us.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman came to a point of order, the point of order being that the Minister is making Answers to Written Questions, on which he cannot be questioned, rather than making a statement to the House. I have no power to interfere with a Minister's desire to make a statement either by means of a Written Answer or by means of a Statement to the House.

Mr. Maclennan: Further to that point of order. As the future of this Authority is widely regarded to be a matter of great importance, may I, through you, Mr. Speaker, appeal to the Leader of the House to make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expressing the dissatisfaction which is felt on this side of the House at the fact that the Minister has chosen to hide behind a Written Answer in this way?

Mr. Speaker: That request will have been noticed.

Mr. James Johnson: On a point of order. As I have just walked in and have met this bombshell, may I be allowed to say that, having seen a Written Question on the Order Paper and suspecting as an old Member that the Minister would perhaps make a statement today, I therefore staked my claim by tabling a Question later on the Order

Paper? I would perhaps bear out all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I do not know what my hon. Friend has said, actually, because I have only just come in. Nevertheless, I think that it is a little below the standard which one expects in the House when a Minister, who has publicly told myself and my hon. Friends in the Chamber time and again that he will make a statement on this matter before the end of the year, skulks behind this technique. I think that it is a little shabby.

Mr. Speaker: The trusting faith of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) in his colleague the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will be noted by the House with deep emotion. I have already ruled on the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order. This is an extremely important matter. It is a question, not only of the White Fish Authority, but of the Government's entire involvement with the whole structure of the fishing industry. For example, on 29th July, 1966, the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said this:
The time has come when we should have higher prices for food and no subsidies for either the agricultural or the fishing industries … the nation has been molly-coddled for too long by receiving cheap food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2127.]
If it is in the Minister's mind to abolish the Authority, the whole structure of the industry is involved and he cannot be questioned on his Statement. It is therefore more important even than any announcement he may make about any particular body. It involves the Government's whole policy towards agriculture, fisheries and food. I hope that a statement will be made so that the whole position can be probed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is in order to hope, but I have ruled on this issue.

Mr. William Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a lot of business ahead.

Mr. Hamilton: May I, through you, Mr. Speaker, seek to prevail upon the


Leader of the House to make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? The question has been put before, but it should be understood that many of us, either as consumers of fish—[HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order."]—I am on a point of order. Mr. Speaker will decide whether it is a point of order.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Leader of the House, in view of the great importance of this question, to undertake to make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is on the record as wanting to abolish the White Fish Authority and increase the price of food to the housewife. It is very important that the Minister should make an oral statement to the House with a view to being questioned. He could easily do that tomorrow without inconveniencing anybody in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is merely a repetition of what has been said before.

WESTERN WELSH OMNIBUS COMPANY

Mr. George Thomas: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Wales what action he will take following the decision made by the Western Welsh Omnibus Company on 15th December, 1970, that they will close their bus depots and withdraw vital bus services in West Wales on 11th January, 1971, including those bus services that carry children to schools.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I understand that the local authorities in Pembrokeshire have decided not to pay grant in respect of six bus services in the county and that the announcement by the Western Welsh Omnibus Company follows this decision. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, had the local authorities decided to pay grant their payments would have qualified for a 50 per cent. Exchequer grant and the remainder would rank for rate support grant. The question of further action is, therefore, in the first place a matter for the local authorities and in Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire they have not yet disclosed their intentions. My Department has already been in touch

with the authorities but in view of the more recent developments, I propose to invite the four county councils concerned to a meeting at the Welsh Office in Cardiff.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that the 50 per cent. grant that was made available through the legislation passed two years ago makes it possible for North Pembrokeshire, which will be without any form of public transport communication, to be assisted? In addition to calling the local authorities together urgently, will he give consideration to the question of the postal bus service which operates in other parts of the country? Will he discuss this with the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Certainly I will give consideration to all matters affecting rural transport in Wales; in fact, consideration is being given at the moment. The local authorities in Pembrokeshire were fully aware of the availability of grant, and I regret the decision they took.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large part of Pembrokeshire will be without any form of public transport from 10th January, and that therefore the news that he is calling an urgent meeting of local authorities will be widely welcomed? Is he further aware, however, that Pembrokeshire County Council has offered a 25 per cent. grant and that it is the R.D.Cs. involved which have so far been unwilling to co-operate? Will my right hon. Friend seek to bring home to all local authorities both their responsibilities and powers in this matter?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, I am fully aware of all those matters and I will certainly do my best to see that the local authorities make use of the grants which are available.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Tory Party has a pretty miserable record in public transport in Wales? Does he recall that in September, 1964, a month before his Welsh electors rejected him, his right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) announced the closure of the Ruabon-Barmouth and Montgomeryshire railway lines, the Afon wen—Bangor and Carmarthen—Aberystwyth


railway lines, and, because of the failure of the Tory Party to do anything about the Jack Report, subsidies for rural buses had to wait for the 1968 Transport Act before anything was done at all? What are the Government's intentions with regard to the grant-aided railway lines in Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Despite the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that the meeting that we have in Cardiff will bear fruit.

Mr. Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the policy, so successfully introduced by the former Government, of introducing industries into the Wrexham constituency is now being seriously jeopardised, certainly so far as the Wrexham Trading Estate is concerned, by the failure of management to persuade work people to travel from their homes to their places of work because of the high cost of bus fares? Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a transport policy to support the successful development policy of the former Government?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I suggest that that is another question. As I have said, I am looking, with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, into all questions of transport in Wales.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a similar situation will arise in North and Mid-Wales as a result of a similar decision by the Crosville Company? Will the right hon. Gentleman take similar steps to deal with the needs of those areas and consult the local authorities in North and Central Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, I am aware of that. My Department is in touch with the local authorities in North Wales, but they have not yet announced a decision in respect of the threatened closure.

Mr. Roderick: Would the Minister consider consulting his colleagues about increasing the 50 per cent. grant? Is he aware that the local authorities in many of these areas that we are discusing, in the rural parts of Wales, are poor and can ill afford to provide the 50 per cent. which is required of them? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider having consultations with his colleagues with a view to increasing Government aid?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The 50 per cent. grant is laid down in the 1968 Act. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the 50 per cent. to be paid by the local authorities counts for rate support grant as well.

BUSINESSS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is today revoking the Order relating to the Emergency. As a result, there will be no need to bring the Regulations before the House.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House, I wish to make a statement about certain proposals which I have today tabled in Brussels regarding United Kingdom participation in the European Economic Community's financial arrangements in the event of our accession.
In brief, Her Majesty's Government have proposed that over the first five years of our membership of the Community our contribution to the Community budget should build up by equal annual steps to a basic key which should lie in the range of 13–15 per cent. of total contributions. Thereafter, for a further three years, the year-to-year changes in our share of contributions should be subject to limitations on the lines of the correctives the Six have provided for themselves up to 1978.
We have further proposed that there should be provision to review, if necessary, the operation of the financial arrangements in an enlarged Community.
The House will expect me to explain the significance of these proposals for the United Kingdom. I must first emphasise that any estimates inevitably depend on a large number of assumptions which have to be made about the ways in which the enlarged Community would develop in the years after we and the other applicant countries had joined. To take just


two of the most important factors: it is really very difficult to judge what the size of the Community's budget will be at the end of this decade, and what share of the total will be devoted on the one hand to schemes of agricultural support, from which we, with our relatively small and highly efficient agriculture, cannot expect to be major beneficiaries, and on the other to regional and industrial development and other programmes.
It is because of these uncertainties that in the past the Six themselves have in practice reviewed their own arrangements whenever unforeseen developments have upset the balance which previous agreements were expected to produce. We have, therefore, proposed to the Six that a suitable review provision should be an essential part of any agreement.
Having made clear to the House the inevitable limitations of any estimates, I can give some indication of what we expect the proposals we have put to the Community might involve. If we assume that the Community budget in 1977 was to be 4,500 million dollars as we have suggested to the Community, then under the proposals we have now made, after making an estimate for receipts, our net contribution would build up gradually from about £30 million in 1973 to about £140 million to £180 million in 1977. If, however, the Community budget remained at its current level of about 3,000 million dollars, then our net contribution would reach about £60 million to £85 million in 1977, on the same estimated basis of receipt.
We have also to take account of the fact that in the short term, membership of the Community will have certain other adverse effects on our balance of trade as a result of the increased cost of food imports and the loss of some of the trade preferences we enjoy in other markets. For this reason, it is important that we should move up gradually towards our ultimate contribution.
Neither this Government nor our predecessors have ever attempted to disguise the fact that membership of the Community will involve a substantial net contribution to the Community budget and, at least in the early stages, other balance of payments costs. But again, like our predecessors, we believe that account

must also be taken of the prospect of dynamic economic advantages of membership which would be substantial. As to these, one has to make a judgment about the likely response of British industry to the opportunities and challenges that would be presented by our entry into the Community. The Government's judgment—and it is shared by the overwhelming majority of our leading industrialists—is that the response would be vigorous and determined and that we could expect to achieve a significantly higher economic growth rate if we joined the Community than if we remained outside.
The Government also consider that membership of an enlarged Community will provide considerable opportunities for British farmers. Without underestimating the problems that have to be faced in the early years of our membership, therefore, we hold firmly to the view that our entry into the Community on reasonable terms would be in the long-term economic interests of this country.
We are also convinced that enlargement of the Community would be in the interests, political perhaps even more than economic, of the whole of Western Europe. It is with these considerations in mind that the Government have formulated the proposals which I have tabled in Brussels today.

Mr. Harold Lever: In view of the complex nature of the matters which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has related to us, and since these are interconnected with other complex matters, including the levy, may I put it to him that I feel that the House would wish to have time to consider and reflect upon all these questions and take an early opportunity to debate the matter in the New Year? May I suggest that that would be a more suitable occasion to discuss these proposals

Mr. Rippon: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view about the complexities and importance of these matters. I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and we have in mind that it would, perhaps, be appropriate to have a debate in both Houses of Parliament before the next Ministerial meetings on 2nd February.

Mr. Sandys: While congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on the considerable progress already made, may I ask him two questions? First, is there not a tendency, when weighing the effect of any particular proposal upon our balance of payments, to under-rate the undoubted benefits which British industry will secure—[An HON. MEMBER: "Name them."]—through access to this greatly enlarged market? Second, with reference to the discussions, of which we read in the Press this morning, among the Six in Brussels about proposals for the length of the transitional period for Britain to adjust herself to the Community arrangements, will he say whether those discussions were preceded by consultations with Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Rippon: I think that people do tend to underestimate the benefits. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) told the House in the debate on 25th February last year, if there were simply an additional growth rate of ½ per cent. in our gross national product over five years as a result of our joining the Community, that would give us an additional £1,100 million. It is in that context that we have to consider these figures.
In reply to my right hon. Friend's second question—No, Sir, there were no consultations. As I told the House when I made an earlier statement, it was our view that this was a crucial question in the negotiations, and we hoped that the Community would not take even a provisional point of view on these matters until we had had an opportunity of pressing our case in detail and discussing it with them.

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made an important statement, since it refines the issues involved. I have two questions to put. May we assume that the 13 per cent. to 15 per cent. contribution would be to the total budget of the enlarged Community of ten? If that be so, what is the percentage of our gross national product in relation to the ten? Second, would the ½ per cent. per annum increase in our growth cover the cost to our balance of payments of the initial phases of joining?

Mr. Rippon: Several questions are raised by this matter. As regards the initial phase of our joining, the period of greatest impact, we have said that we should move up gradually towards our figure of 13 per cent. to 15 per cent. at the estimate of contributions of the ten, 13 per cent. to 15 per cent. is based on the estimate of contributions of the Ten, not on existing contributions. In arriving at that figure, we have had regard particularly to the build-up of the contribution of the Federal Republic of Germany, which, perhaps, is nearest—though there are inevitable differences—to our own position in this matter. The bracket comes because there are various ways of making that calculation.

Mr. Thorpe: May I put the question again? Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, if the 13 per cent. to 15 per cent. is to be our contribution, what is our percentage of gross national product in relation to the total gross national product of the Community at large?

Mr. Rippon: One of the difficulties about it is that one cannot have regard simply to gross national product, although we have had regard to it in putting forward our figure, with particular reference to the contribution of Germany. This is a gross figure of contribution to the budget. What matters, in effect, at the end of the day—and these were the figures I used—is the net contribution we have to make, having regard to receipts. It is that factor which we have to consider and, perhaps, have some discussions about in depth.

Mr. Turton: Could my right hon. and learned Friend explain the disparity between the figures which he has given today and the figures in the February White Paper? He has mentioned a subsidy to the French farmers of 15 per cent., amounting to £140 million in 1977. In the February White Paper the figure given was £270 million. Can he explain why there is such a wide disparity between the present assessments and those of his predecessors?

Mr. Rippon: I think that the basic difference between the figures which I have given and those in the White Paper is that I have referred to net contribution and the White Paper was referring to gross contribution. I think that net


is right. To put the matter further into perspective, as I have explained, our net contribution under the proposals which we have made might build up approximately—the wide variation arises because the figures are rather speculative at this stage—to a figure of the order of £60 million to £180 million, depending on the size and the shape of the budget. One must then have regard also to what I described as the adverse short-term effect on trade balances, which might amount to something like £200 million to £300 million at the end of the transitional period. I think that that gives an indication of the range of figures involved.

Mr. Skinner: The Chancellor of the Duchy has made his statement today, and the Prime Minister spoke yesterday of the Government wanting to conform to the will of the majority in respect of industrial relations. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman understand that there is a large majority against the move which he is making, and will he consult the Leader of the House so as to ensure that, before he makes any further concessions in Brussels, he receives a licence from the House?

Mr. Rippon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, these negotiations were started by our predecessors, with the overwhelming support of the House of Commons. The negotiations are now proceeding on the basis which was laid down by our predecessors. There is really no dispute in principle about it. When the negotiations are concluded, the matter will have to be presented to Parliament, which will form a view about it on the situation as it then exists. I must add that I think it quite wrong to talk in terms of concessions in negotiations of this kind.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that what worries his well-wishers in this matter is the open-ended nature of the financial commitment? What mechanism is he proposing to ensure that that open-ended commitment is somehow closed? Is it to be by a review body, by a definite financial limit being placed, or how?

Mr. Rippon: We have to bear in mind that as well as an open-ended commitment there are open-ended advantages. [An HON. MEMBER: "Name them."] We

must remember that. But, because of the speculative nature of these figures and the difficulty of foreseeing what the position will be in, say, 1980 both as to the size of the Community's budget and its shape, and a whole host of other factors, we have proposed to the Community, as I said in my statement, that there should be some provision for review if things turn out in a way which none of us expect. That would apply not just to the United Kingdom but to any other member of the Community. There are, in addition, various provisions in the Treaty of Rome itself which are in the nature of safeguards.

Mr. Jay: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy agree that, in addition to all this, according to an answer given to me yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the British Government have now accepted the E.E.C. proposals for monetary union and for more rigidly fixed exchange rates? Are these also additional parts of the price which we have to pay?

Mr. Rippon: I think that it is a long way from a matter of fact, the Community being bitterly divided on the issue at the moment, that they have accepted even the first stages of the Werner Report, and much less the third stage which lies very far in the future.

Mr. Walters: Could my right hon. and learned Friend give some indication of what he thinks will be the effects on our balance of payments?

Mr. Rippon: I thought that I had done that by indicating that the net contribution to the Community on the various assumptions which I had made might be between £60 million and £180 million. One has also to take into account the other adverse short-term effects on the balance of payments which might amount to about £200 million or £300 million at the end of the transitional period.

Mr. John Mendelson: In reference to the purposes on which these large sums of money, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is inviting the country to contribute, are to be spent, has he studied the statement published by the Commission in October of this year that in the 12 months up to October some 300 million dollars had been spent on


the destruction of perfectly good, first-class butter and that it is now proposed for the 12 months starting last October to spend another 300 million dollars on a similar purpose? Is he doing anything, as a condition of the House accepting entry, to change this crazy and wasteful policy before inviting us to take part in it?

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving information which has been of some encouragement to some people, not least to New Zealand. These are relevant factors in the negotiations which of course we have in mind. In fixing our contribution we are concerned not only with the gross amount we pay, but what we pay it to and what we pay it for. This is what we were discussing—both the size of the Community's budget and its shape.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as, at least in the initial stages, the probable result of our accession would be a reduction of ½ per cent. in our growth rate below what it would otherwise be, the additional detriment which he has described would be the £1,100 million which he mentioned, but in the opposite direction?

Mr. Rippon: If any of the three British Governments which at various stages have pursued these negotiations had that in mind, I should be astonished.

Sir G. de Freitas: Coming back to the figures in the original statement; would it not be more significant if in future statements the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave not only figures of the estimated cost to us, but figures of the estimated gains to our economy?

Mr. Rippon: One of the difficulties is that all the figures are rather speculative. All our experience with Treasuries in all countries is that they have some difficulty in making forecasts for next year, much less for 1978, and those forecasts are on the budgetary side, which makes them rather easier. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is right. The right hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) put it very reasonably when he suggested that the hardly measurable figure of ½ per cent. growth rate over five years, that is a cumulative build-up, would be an addition of £1,100 million.

That growth rate has to be translated into an annual figure of benefit to the balance of payments, but in so far as the increase in the growth rate would largely result from access to this enormous market, we may assume that a fair balance can be struck in the proposals which are being made in Brussels.

Mr. Tugendhat: Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell us how these figures of 13 to 15 per cent. will compare on the same basis with the contributions of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy as the nations most comparable with ourselves?

Mr. Rippon: We think that it will strike a fair balance. There will be some argument about it, but one has to have regard not only to the gross contribution but to the receipts, and what we are concerned with is that our contribution to the Community budget will not be unduly high in all the circumstances. The Community argues that one of the great advantages which we will get, being highly industrialised, will be access to its great and growing market.

Mr. Barnett: Because the broader vision of a united Europe is of such vital importance, is it not all the more important that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should make it clear to the Six that we should not be paying a grossly disproportionate net contribution? Would he therefore clarify what he was saying about review clauses for the period after the end of the transitional period? Does he consider it possible to put forward a proposal which would allow for something less than 90 per cent. of the import duties and levies and the 1 per cent. added value tax?

Mr. Rippon: We are not asking for an adaptation of the system itself, although it should be borne in mind that the Heads of Government at the Hague in 1969 envisaged that as a possibility. We envisage that we can conform to the system and we have put forward what has been described as a fair contribution on our part. We will discuss on that basis. I think that it is the only way in which we can usefully proceed.

Mr. Blaker: Regardless of the detailed arrangements which may be agreed, if it became clear in the light of experience that the arrangements for the financial


contributions were damaging the economy of a particular country, would it not be in the interests of other member countries to remedy the situation? Is not that how the Community works?

Mr. Rippon: That is certainly how it works in practice and that is what the Community says. In one of its helpful first documents it pointed out that if an intolerable and inequitable situation arose, affecting the interests of any member, the Community institutions would deal with the situation. I have said that I accept the financial side safeguards in the Treaty, such as Article 108 and others, but one of the particular difficulties we still have is quantifying the results and likely benefits. In addition to our estimates for the period of five years and the correctives thereafter, there would have to be some understanding if a difficulty arose, now unforeseen, and there would have to be some review procedure. I am not being dogmatic about the review procedure. We must try to bring out something which may be accepted by the Community as a solution which will be in accordance with the principles of the Treaty.

Mr. Loughlin: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is increasing fear, both inside and outside the House, that the Government are determined to enter the Common Market at all costs? Will he make it absolutely clear to those with whom he is negotiating that the decision to go in will be taken clearly and positively by this House?

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; that was a most helpful intervention. My statement has made it clear that of course we think that cost is a relevant factor and it is perfectly clear that any proposals will have to be put to the House before any agreements are reached.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind in relation to the Werner Committee's proposals for total monetary and economic union in Western Europe that The Times thought that this was possibly the most important development in Europe since the Roman Empire? But would he also bear in mind that Rome was not built in a day? Would he further

recall that Rome was eventually built, but did not last for ever?

Mr. Rippon: I certainly hope that the Community will last even longer than the Roman Empire. There is no doubt that the proposal for increased monetary cooperation among the nations of Western Europe is something which we should welcome. What is more, it is in our long-term interests that we should be part of any discussions which take place in Western Europe about the likely nature of international monetary co-operation by which we are directly affected.

Mr. Harold Lever: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to discuss monetary co-operation, will he expose to the House what his notions will be on the ancillary questions, not directly involved in the negotiations, of our own attitude to the sterling area and the subject of sterling as a reserve currency? Would he let the House know what his position will be on these matters, which will be of fundamental importance in affecting the outcome of the negotiations?

Mr. Rippon: We made it perfectly clear from the outset that these discussions were not part of the negotiations. It was agreed that there should be discussion of these matters at the appropriate time, but we have not begun such discussion yet. As it goes ahead, we will certainly keep the House informed. Meanwhile, specific questions on these matters should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I take the point and we shall have to consider it.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that when he comes to the House and reports to us on his negotiations it is with some urgency that we question him as to the progress he has made and as to the articles which might or might not be involved? I put it to him that whilst these problems are of immense importance to this country, there are other problems of the third world which grow ever larger as a direct consequence of this position. Is he proposing to have discussions with the Commission on the question of harmonisation of overseas aid in future?

Mr. Rippon: That is something we are concerned with now and with which we would be concerned within an enlarged


Community. All the evidence is that the Community has adopted very forward-looking policies in its relations with the under-developed countries. This is part of the problem we have to consider, particularly in relation to underdeveloped countries of the Commonwealth and those which are members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Of course, we have all this in mind and we would expect an enlarged Community to have a forward-looking and progressive policy in these matters.

Mr. Shore: The House will want to examine closely the arithmetic of the transitional period which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put to us. I am sure he will agree that it is the permanent post-transitional arrangements which matter most. Will he confirm that he has accepted financial regulations to give parities in the Six—that is, that Britain will be prepared to contribute the full fruit of the levy on its agricultural imports, the total yield of its own external tariffs, plus 1 per cent. of value-added tax to the Fund in the period after the transitional period, whether five or eight years are needed? Is that so?

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about the complexity of these matters and the House will wish to consider in detail the mathematics involved, as far as one is capable of expressing these things mathematically. I have said that we have been negotiating on the basis that we accept the financial system which the Community has adopted. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I added that, of course, the Heads of Government indicated that in certain circumstances there could be adaptations.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that the time has come when he should spell out in clearer terms, with all the risk of affecting his negotiations, what he considers will be "reasonable terms"? This is a phrase which he has used so often, but in making his presentations he seems to represent what to me are rather onerous terms as being reasonable. The damage is clear and can be measured to some extent, but the supposed advantages are speculative. For example, can he measure "dynamism"? From the purely domestic point of view, it is a difficult situation

because when we have such statements containing very important figures they are distributed only to the Opposition Front Bench and the Leaders of the Liberal Party, who have a coalition on this issue, and it means that other right hon. and hon. Members of this House who want to probe have not got the facilities in order to follow the matter through.

Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend will recall that earlier I said that we envisaged that there should be a debate in the House before the next Ministerial meeting on 2nd February. I hope that that will help right hon. and hon. Members to have an opportunity to consider the implications. These things cannot be measured absolutely precisely. I am sure that the terms we have put to the Community are fair and reasonable. Of course, the Community says that they are too fair and reasonable and, therefore, it has put forward its own views as to what would constitute a mutual balance of advantage as between the existing Community and the applicants. That is what the negotiations are about.

Mr. McBride: I want to refer to the problem of regional industrial development. Is it the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assumption, or is it a fact, that regional industrial policy will continue as at present? Taking Wales as an example, can he envisage any reductions in the financial incentives with which we hope to attract more and more industry to the Principality?

Mr. Rippon: What I am talking about is an increase in these facilities. This is one of the reasons that I am concerned about, not only the ultimate size of the Community's budget but its shape. At present, the greater part of the Community's budget is devoted to agricultural support, and because of the nature of our small and efficient agricultural industry our receipts are very much smaller than those of anyone else, which is a factor to be borne in mind. One of the assumptions to make is that if the shape of the budget changes in the years ahead so that a smaller proportion is devoted to agriculture and a higher proportion to regional and other investment programmes, a new situation is created which is more beneficial to us.

Mr. Longden: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that among


those misguided persons and bodies which are opposed to our going into Europe on any terms there should not be included, first, the third world to which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has referred, and, secondly, at home, our agricultural industry, since what is certain is that both will benefit?

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is perfectly right about that.

Mr. Rose: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the transitional period of five years is long enough to ensure that average wages, holidays, redundancy payments, family allowances and other benefits in this country will go up to the superior levels in the Common Market countries? Is not the Government's current legislation directly blocking this parallel development towards parity with the Common Market countries in these respects?

Mr. Rippon: I cannot accept the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I believe that the transitional periods we are proposing are perfectly adequate and would enable us both to adjust to the difficulties and to seize the opportunities in a fair way. It is true that over a wide range of social security benefits wages and holidays the levels are rather better in the Community than they are here.

Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall saying that the application had the overwhelming support of Parliament? I remind him that it was not this Parliament which did so but the last Parliament. There is a big difference in that. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may not like it, but they are going to hear it. My right hon. and learned Friend also said that there is no doubt about the dynamic economic advantages of going into the Common Market. Does not he recall that the White Paper said that this was unquantifiable, that the National Institute said that there are no advantages in going in, and that the C.B.I, report is highly suspect by a great number of businessmen? Will he inform the country and Parliament what these so-called dynamic economic advantages are?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that my hon. Friend should complain about the change in the composition of this House; I do not. It is the upper limit of the advantages which is unquantifiable. The report to which he refers was not a report of the National Institute. It was by three of its members and was published under the auspices of the Institute, which made it clear that the authors were answerable for their own views.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, apart from the problematical likelihood of an extension of the transitional period, he has told us nothing new on this matter at all? What he has done in his statement is to underline the importance to British farmers of the Common Market policy. He appears to be in the mood to sell our E.F.T.A. friends and our Commonwealth partners down the river in the interests of British farmers.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to study my statement before he assumes that there is nothing new in it. I think that he will find that what I have had to say is of some significance.
I attended a meeting of the E.F.T.A. Council of Ministers in Geneva recently and we are all moving forward together in a broad front. Some of our E.F.T.A. partners are applying for membership—two of them with us. Others are applying for association. Others are seeking arrangements which will have regard to their particular circumstances of neutrality, whether forced or voluntary. The hon. Gentleman need not worry on that score.
We are in close touch with the Commonwealth, both with the developed, independent nations and the developing, independent nations; we have dealt very largely already with the dependant territories, with some reservations still about Hong Kong. The hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed about the position in E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth. Both of them know that it is in the interests of Britain, of Europe and of the free world itself that these negotiations should succeed. If there are difficulties in bringing about a successful conclusion to these negotiations, I ask my hon. Friend to believe that the problems which


would be aroused by their failure are far greater.

Mr. Mather: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is not only the financial commitment that is open-ended but also the political commitment, and that this is what causes many people a great deal of concern? Could he give the House any reassurance on this matter?

Mr. Rippon: I trust that the whole life of the nation is open-ended. Things will go on even after the end of the transitional period. One cannot precisely guess what will be the position in 1980 in regard to the pattern of world trade. Of course, a great deal will happen. We can only make reasonable assumptions as to how we see progress developing.

Mr. Sheldon: What estimates has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made of the gross contributions and receipts? Is he not aware that the higher costs he envisages would be due only if we had economic growth rates rather higher than they are at present, and that the lower estimates would be applicable if our economic growth rates were lower—in other words, that the more prosperous we become the more we will be expected to pay? What ceiling is envisaged over the period involved, is it likely to be annual and what negotiations has he had about this matter?

Mr. Rippon: What I have given is what we think would be our net contri-

bution. This will depend on assumptions of the size of the budget and the gross receipts. I cannot go easily into those details now, but there is some dispute between us about the accuracy of the figures of estimates. We say that our figures are the more accurate; the Community says that its figures are the more accurate. We shall have to go into the matter in detail.
It is perhaps wrong for the hon. Gentleman to have used the word "ceiling". What I have suggested is that there is a percentage contribution which we could make which we regarded as our key and that we should build up to the figure by equal stages over five years and correctives for three years thereafter. There should be correctives—that is to say, there should be no wild increases in our percentage contribution by any factor, but it would be limited by a certain percentage per annum thereafter. One would have to see what was the budget and what was our contribution. If it were to get wildly out of line at any stage, then there must be some sort of machinery within the enlarged Community in order that we should review it. The Community says, "You can take the matter for granted—what do you want provision for?" But I think that it would be helpful that we should have this provision.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

DIEGO GARCIA (BASES)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the British Government, announced in a Written Parliamentary Answer yesterday, agreeing to the construction by the United States Government of naval communications facilities at Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean which Britain will assist in manning.
That this is a specific matter can hardly be questioned.
As to its importance, I would put four crisp reasons to the House.
First, the decision represents a new turn in British defence policy by facilitating and introducing a static United States military presence in the Indian Ocean for the first time.
Secondly, the decision is likely to provoke a major Commonwealth controversy since it is directly opposed to the stated wishes of the Government of Ceylon, the nearest country to Diego Garcia, and to the express public views of the Indian Government and not least of Mrs. Indira Gandhi with whom, I understand on impeccable authority, no consultation has taken place. As such, it is a dangerous, and I believe counter-productive, game for Western white men to start playing.
Thirdly, the decision, judging from my personal knowledge of Mauritius last year, is likely to create great difficulty in relations with Mauritius. It is no use the Parliamentary Under-Secretary smiling. He will recollect that the Partie Mauritienne left the Coalition precisely on the issue of Western bases in the British Indian Ocean territorities.
Fourthly, on the decision itself the House deserves, and needs, some clarification. I would suggest that a "limited naval facility" involving the building, as I understand it, of at least harbours walls out of coral limestone for ships and creating aircraft facilities—possibly, though this is not clear, for Nimrod aircraft—in an area notorious for its cyclones and storms is not " limited ", and certainly not limited in any financial sense. As to the urgency of the decision—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into merits.

Mr. Dalyell: As to the urgency of the matter, Mr. Speaker, construction is said to be starting in March and plans will be in motion before the House returns on 12th January.
Finally, if the British and Americans have resources available for major construction works in Asia, I suggest that those resources ought to be concentrated on building dams and harbour walls in the islands in the mouth of the Ganges and not for messing around with very doubtful projects, tilting at windmills in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Speaker: This morning the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), with his characteristic courtesy, informed me that he would seek to move the adjournment of the House, as he has done.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
the decision of the British Government, announced in a Written Parliamentary Answer yesterday, agreeing to the construction by the United States Government of naval communications facilities at Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelego in the Indian Ocean which Britain will assist in manning.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, I have given careful consideration to the representations he has made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provision of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL (TELLERS)

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. I am sorry to raise a second point of order, Mr. Speaker, though I do not apologise for the substance of either since I regard these issues as fairly important to the House.
Yesterday you made a Ruling, which appears in column 1199 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, on the Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill. That Ruling took my hon. Friend


the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and myself by surprise. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Ruling arose from the incident that took place on the count on my Ten-Minute Bill which seeks to abolish the cruel sport of hare coursing. It arose because two of the people who acted as tellers against my Bill actually appeared as supporters of the Bill.
You then gave a Ruling which was as follows:
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) were appointed tellers for the Noes on the Question, 'That leave be given to bring in a bill.' The Question was agreed to, but immediately after telling against the Bill their names were included in the list of Members ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill. For Members whose names are to be announced as supporters of a Bill to vote or tell against the introduction of the Bill violates, in my opinion, the well-established principle of this House that a Member's vote must agree with his voice. I must therefore give directions that the hon. Members' names be removed from the list of Members ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill and that the Journal be corrected accordingly."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 15th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 1119.]
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, because I had no way of looking at the Ruling at that time, that I apologised to you and to the House if I had transgressed these rules or procedures. However, it is to that Ruling which you gave yesterday that I want to direct my remarks.
Several points arise out of this vote and voice procedure. I should like to refer to a speech made by my then hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw) on 14th May, 1970, on the Hare Coursing Bill. He said:
Now we come to the curious behaviour of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball).
There was then an interjection.
On 6th November, 1969, I had a letter from the hon. Gentleman, on House of Commons notepaper, asking me to use my place in the Ballot to take up the Bill eventually sponsored by the hon. Member for the City of Chester. The hon. Gentleman stated in this invitation that the Bill had the support of competent naturalists, which I certainly accept. I replied on 11th November regretting being unable to accede to his request.
He then goes on to discuss various points with which I will not take up the time of the House. The important point comes at the end of this part of my former hon. Friend's speech:

The hon. Gentleman voted against the Seals Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 1554.]
Looking back to Second Reading of the Seals Bill on 12th December, 1969, we find that the hon. Gentleman voted against it, although he had asked my former hon. Friend to introduce it. This is important. However, it is not for me to comment why the hon. Gentleman took that course of action. The fact is that he did.
Many of my hon. Friends were confused by what you, Mr. Speaker, then said. Therefore, I turn to page 409 of Erskine May where their problem was solved. Had they looked at the last paragraph under the voice and vote procedure they would have read:
A Member who has made a motion is afterwards entitled to vote against it, provided he gives his voice with the 'noes' when the question is put from the chair; nor does the fact that a Member's name appears on the Notice Paper as supporting an amendment preclude him from voting against the amendment.
That seems very reasonable and proper. My submission is that the action taken by my hon. Friends was exactly the action taken by the hon. Member for Gainsborough or the conduct referred to in Erskine May at page 409, but in reverse.
The rule on page 408 is:
Members must bear in mind that then opinion is collected from their voices in the House, and not merely by a division; and that, if their voices and their votes should be at variance, the voice will bind the vote. A Member therefore who gives his voice with the 'ayes' (or 'noes') when the Speaker takes the voices, is bound to vote with them; although a Member has been permitted to correct his voice at the second call.
There is then the example. On page 409, following the example, it says:
The objection that a Member's vote was contrary to his voice should be taken either before the numbers are reported by the tellers or immediately afterwards; it will not be entertained after the declaration of the numbers from the chair.
I submit that an objection was taken to the voice and vote after the declaration of the result from the Chair; that the count and the declaration was one complete act. What followed in my naming those who were to prepare the Bill with me was in fact a separate act which, if the vote had gone, would never have taken place. So the declaration of the vote is a separate act. Therefore, I submit on that point, with due respect,


Mr. Speaker, that the naming and conduct of my hon. Friends was correct.
I should like, however, to speak to the other question which arose; namely, the backing of a Bill. The only reference which I could find in Erskine May was at page 520. It may be that I have missed a reference, but with my spectacles broken I am finding difficulty at the moment. On page 520 it says:
Members 'backing' a Bill.—The Speaker decided, on 1 February 1893, by a private ruling, that the names of Members ordered to bring in a bill should not exceed twelve in number, while the number of names on the back of a bill presented without an order of the House for its introduction is similarly limited.
With respect, I could find no reference to your decision, Mr. Speaker, to remove names from the back of the Bill.
An important point arises here. Under the Ten Minute Rule procedure, it is possible for a Member to have a Bill accepted for First Reading by this House, be ordered to have it prepared and printed, and then, at every possible stage when it is coming forward, unless the Government of the day are impressed by the people supporting it, for it to be stopped by a single voice shouting "Object". The voice does not have to be singled out as that of a Member who is stopping the legislation going through. If your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, applied to what you said about the conduct of my hon. Friends, surely it should also have applied to hon. Members who say "Object".
The only way that an hon. Member can overcome sedentary opposition from opponents of the Measure that he is seeking to introduce is to be prepared to put in his hon. Friends to act as tellers for the "Noes" so that Members will have to stand up and be counted.
Such is the nature of the so-called sport, so horrible and repugnant to many people in our society, that the only way that my hon. Friends could explain to their constituents their reasons and justification for being prepared to act as tellers for the "Noes" was to have their names appearing as sponsors of the Bill. This is the only way, on any issue of raising opposition, and getting hon. Members to show themselves, of protecting hon. Members who go into the "No" Lobby.
I apologise for the time I have taken, but it is a fundamental issue. It is important to hon. Members, and to myself in particular.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy yesterday in apologising when he did not have to apologise.
May I say, first, that I should apologise both to the hon. Gentleman and his two hon. Friends because I did not give them notice yesterday of the Ruling which I proposed to make. Mr. Speaker is bound by the courtesies of the House, like everybody else. The error was mine. I had a note from my Clerk in the morning suggesting that if I was to make a Ruling I should inform the two hon. Members concerned. I hope that the three hon. Gentlemen will accept my expression of regret.
The hon. Gentleman has given us an account of various difficulties which occur in parliamentary tactics. I cannot comment on any of those. He has referred to various strategies and tactics which have occurred in the long history of the attempt to get a Hare Coursing Bill through the House. I cannot comment on any of these.
On the issue on which I ruled yesterday, I must reaffirm my Ruling. The hon. Gentleman asked for the authority on which I made it. I must say at once that the duty of the Speaker is to ensure that the Journal and other documents of the House correctly record what took place. The two hon. Members to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred, the Members for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), did not support the Bill, since the Journal will show that they told against it for the "Noes". For that reason, and as a matter of historical fact, their names cannot be recorded as supporting the Bill which was introduced. Mr. Speaker's powers over legislation are summarised in Erskine May at page 248, where it is stated that the Speaker has directed the withdrawal of entire Public Bills, and that he has also directed that a Bill received from the Lords be laid aside. There is no doubt that my authority extends to directing that a Bill should appear in a particular form, as in this case by the omission of two names in


order that the Bill and the Journal should both be in conformity in recording our proceedings.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.

Mr. Ashton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your Ruling, but what would happen if I were now to introduce a Ten Minute Rule Bill, called the Hare Coursing (No. 2) Bill, which was infinitesimally different from the Hare Coursing (No. 1) Bill? Would I be allowed to act as a sponsor of such a Bill you having ruled that my name should be deleted from the No. 1 Bill? If it would be valid for me to introduce a No. 2 Bill, having told against the No. 1 Bill, what would be the difference, and what would your Ruling be on that?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule on hypothetics. If that issue comes before me I shall rule on it. There is nothing to prevent the hon. Member from taking whatever line he likes about the Hare Coursing Bill when it comes to its Second Reading before the House.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would give the House a general guidance on the difficulty facing hon. Members who wish to table Questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about price increases. I am raising, not a particular question, but a general principle which is causing difficulty to hon. Members.
It appears that Questions may no longer be addressed to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the ground that "the Minister has disclaimed responsibility for restraining price increases". I understand that the Minister has so disclaimed responsibility, and that to some extent ignorance is bliss is a good defence. I am suggesting that the principle that indolence is also bliss cannot be maintained, because the Minister has statutory responsibilities for the matter.
For instance, under the Prices and Incomes Act, Part I of which is still in force, there is power for the Minister to refer price increases to the Prices and

Incomes Board. Under various Agriculture Acts the Minister has statutory powers to determine prices. Where there are monopolies affecting prices, the Minister has power to refer them to the Monopolies Commission. During this week, when there was a state of emergency, the Minister had a statutory power which he could have used to restrain the price of candles or eggs.
Although the Minister disclaims responsibility, hon. Members nevertheless have a right to press him with Questions, even if they receive negative replies, about the exercise of the responsibilities which have been given to him by the House. If hon. Members cannot question the Minister, I submit that this is a grave abuse by a Minister of the Crown of his responsibility to answer to Parliament for things for which he is responsible by Statute.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had informed the hon. Member of what the position was about points of order in a letter that I sent him this morning. I have ruled on several occasions that it does not accord with the practice of the House for the refusal of a Question, or a group of Questions, by the Table Office to be raised as a point of order. If an hon. Member is dissatisfied with a decision by the Table Office, he can always have recourse to Mr. Speaker—which the hon. Member did not do in this case—and if Mr. Speaker's decision is then found unsatisfactory there are conventional parliamentary ways in which the matter can be raised by a Motion on the Order Paper.

RENTCHARGE ABOLITION

Mr. Michael Cocks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the creation of rentcharges on freehold land; and to extinguish existing rent-charges equitably.
The Bill seeks to remedy a land tenure anomaly which, at the moment, is limited to the areas around Bristol and Manchester, whereby residential properties are freehold but subject to rentcharge. This is commonly known as a ground rent in the Bristol area, and a chief rent in the Manchester area. It is not, however, a true ground rent, but a rentcharge on freehold property. I imagine that most hon. Members are accustomed to thinking


of residential property as being either completely freehold or leasehold at a ground rent, but here we have people who own the house, own the land on which it stands, and yet pay a rentcharge on it.
I should at this stage declare my interest, because for 15 years I lived in a pre-war house which carried an annual rent-charge of £6, and since September I have lived in a 70-year old house which carries an annual rentcharge of £4 15s. I hope, however, that the House will accept that this is not the prime motivation for my pursuing the Bill today.
The search for a house in my younger days brought me into contact with the system which I thought then was anomalous, and I shared the resentment which many others had against it, and recently I was pleased to find that the Law Commission had published a working paper, No. 24, on the question of rentcharges, in which it said in paragraph 30 on page 19:
Accordingly, we consider that a prima facie case for prohibition of the creation of rentcharges in the future and the extinction of existing rentcharges is established.
In July I appealed to the general public to send me information on this subject, and I had a substantial response. I also wrote to a number of estate agents, and had replies from them, and on the basis of these replies, together with my own experience, I compiled a submission to the Law Commission.
There is an historical justification for these charges. Economically, large landowners used to release land to small builders. They received no capital in return, but accepted a perpetual rent-charge on it, and this exceeded the agricultural return on the land.
There are also covenants associated with these rentcharges. One estate agent said that the covenants were instrumental in preserving Bath's great Georgian terraces, but he went on to say that the function of the covenants had been superseded by the Town and Country Planning Acts.
The economic justification is no longer valid, and the Law Commission seems to feel that, rather than lower the capital cost of a house, which is what the developers claim, it is more of a bonus for developers, and about three-quarters of

the 60 estate agents who replied to me take the same view as the Law Commission does.
Perhaps I may quote what was said by one local surveyor, auctioneer and estate agent:
Perpetual yearly rentcharge is applicable only to freehold properties and is frankly iniquitous—it is often named in the profession as the Builders' Pension Fund … and in our opinion is a dubious method of inflating the purchase price, particularly of new property beyond the current market price.
Other agents confirmed this, using expressions such as "confidence trick", the "Bristol twist" and similar descriptions.
From the general public I received only one letter in favour of this system; the remainder were very strongly against it. Some people wrote on behalf of their neighbours in a cul-de-sac, or a road, and on behalf of colleagues at work. Some offered to collect signatures. Some included lists of people who were opposed to this practice, and the word most commonly used about it was "iniquitous".
Perhaps I may weary the House with one quotation:
I heartily agree that it is high time this iniquitous practice was legally stopped. No one has ever satisfactorily explained why I should have to pay a rentcharge on freehold land for which I have paid the full price in a lump sum.
Others stressed that this was an anachronism, and that they received no benefit for their payments. Particularly virulent were the letters from people in other parts of the country, where this system is unknown and incomprehensible to them.
It may be said that people have a choice whether they buy their property freehold and free, or freehold with a rentcharge, but how genuine is this choice? The Law Commission's working paper estimates that about 80 per cent. of the property in the Bath, Bristol and Weston-super-Mare areas is freehold subject to rentcharge, and this is borne out by my experience and confirmed by estate agents.
In some of the newly developing areas around Bristol the situation is even worse, and one solicitor in North Somerset said that on new houses there the imposition of rentcharges was practically universal. This area is destined to grow by the year 2,000 to a town the size of Taunton and, as things are going, each one of these houses will carry a rentcharge. There


is little choice for a young couple of limited means. I quote one example explaining this:
My first experience …
that is, of the rentcharge system—
… was when I removed to this area four years ago, and I found there was no alternative to my acceptance of this iniquitous charge. I had to have a house in order to live near my employment. I was forced into a distasteful situation.
It is also suggested that if rentcharges are prohibited then leasehold will replace them. The people who suggest this in the Bristol area envisage that the ground rent on the leasehold will be the same as the rentcharge. I find this argument extremely difficult to follow. If this is so, it means that as the price of land rises, in order to get a fair return on the capital if only a small ground rent is imposed, then the purchaser would have to pay a very substantial part of the cost of the plot, and in this way he will be paying towards the acquisition of land which he is not then entitled to own.
I have had letters from people who have bought rentcharges as an investment who have been concerned about the raising of this issue, but they have been reassured by the proposals that these charges will be extinguished equitably and that their investment will thus be safeguarded.
Some estate agents maintain that rentcharges result in a reduction of purchase price. This is not generally held, but those who believe that such is the case stress that it is possible to redeem rentcharges under Section 191 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. Even if this right is widely known, is it worth while? There is is no guarantee that the redemption of the rentcharge will enhance the market value of the property. In addition, the working paper states that residential property in urban areas changes hands once every eight years on average, thus one may well redeem and simply pass on the benefit to the next purchaser. In spite of this, some people still redeem as a matter of principle because they find the system so objectionable. As one person said:
It is a poisonous tag on any man's private property.

If the situation were static, I should not press it on the House with such urgency. But the letters which I have received show that the system is spreading like a disease through the West Country. I have had reports of the rentcharge system being imposed, for example, in Minehead, Burnham on Sea, Shepton Mallett, Calne and on the Cotswolds, and it is absolutely rife in South Gloucestershire and North Somerset, the area around Bristol.
We carried out a sample survey of two polling districts in the rapidly developing area of Winterbourne, with 7,000 people on the register. We estimated an income of 22,618 guineas of rentcharge in that area alone. I have already said that my own charge is £4 15s. Many new rentcharges are in the region of 12, 15, 20 and even 30 guineas.
I ask the House to support the Bill, first, to simplify the land law of this country; secondly, to remove from the law the blame which it is at present receiving for allowing the system and giving it legal sanction; thirdly, to stop the spread which I have mentioned going any further; and, above all, to remove the sense of injustice. People who are struggling to buy their own homes want to own their homes and own them root and branch. If they buy freehold they want freehold. When they make rates and mortgage payments, they know that there is something to show for them. They can see nothing for rentcharges. I ask the House to support them and to remove what may once have been justified but has now become a gross local anomaly.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Cocks, Mr. Kenneth Marks, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Charles R. Morris, Mr. Arthur Palmer and Mr. David Watkins.

RENTCHARGE ABOLITION

Bill to prohibit the creation of rentcharges on freehold land; and to extinguish existing rentcharges equitably, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 26th March and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

Orders of the Day — LAND COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.57 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is put very clearly and succinctly in the Long Title:
… to Abolish betterment levy and dissolve the Land Commission …".
We on this side of the House, when we were in Opposition, said many times during the passage of the Bill which resulted in the Land Commission Act of 1967 that we would abolish the betterment levy and the Land Commission created by that Bill when we had the opportunity to do so. We said that in Parliament at that time and we said that in the country for the three years or so of the Land Commission's life. We said it in the Conservative manifesto for the last General Election.
There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that we intended, on taking office, to abolish the betterment levy and to abolish the Land Commission, nor can there be any doubt in anyone's mind that we had a mandate from the public to do so. We said in the Conservative Party's manifesto and during the General Election campaign that betterment levy had increased bureaucracy and had increased the price of land. That is exactly what has happened during the three years' life of the Land Commission. We said that we would do away with betterment levy and, so far as it was justifiable, the tax imposed on land, and that we would make them subject to the normal process of capital gains tax, with the principles of income tax applicable to the person called upon to pay, that is to say, the normal allowances which income tax provides.
We said clearly in that manifesto that we would abolish the Land Commission not because we disagreed with the very laudable objects which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen put forward at the time of the Bill—

Mr. Frank Allaun: But right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do, really.

Mr. Page: No, we agree with those very laudable objects of bringing land forward in the right place and at the right time, of making land cheaper and more readily available. But we will abolish the Land Commission because it never achieved those objects. In its struggling to achieve them, it has only brought considerable hardship to many people and certainly confusion in the burden placed upon those who have had to pay.
It was claimed during the process of the Bill which resulted in the Act of 1967 that these twins, betterment levy and the acquisition powers, would make land more readily and cheaply available. In fact, since the Land Commission started its operations, land for house building has become scarcer and more expensive. Over those three years, the price of land has risen by a half.
The Land Commission was to collect a betterment levy and was to have compulsory powers. It was claimed that by these means the right land would be brought forward at the right time and in the right place. However, after three years of effort, the Commission managed to acquire only 2,800 acres and to make available to those who wanted to build on this land only 320 acres. That is the measure of its achievement during its life. What is more, those 320 acres mostly were not where there was a land shortage. It was not in the sort of places where it was hoped that any body of this sort would bring forward land for building purposes.
When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite promoted the Bill which resulted in the 1967 Act, it was claimed that there would be a return to the community of the development value created by the community. But that can be done just as easily and appropriately by capital gains tax, with less hardship to those who suffer, since capital gains tax allows the homes of people to be exempt from the tax and avoids what in many cases is the great hardship of betterment levy in that one has to pay it before receiving the money on which it has to be paid.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the revenue obtained


would be got by means of a capital gains tax. That is not so. If it were so, why does the Financial Memorandum explain that the Revenue will forgo £12 million a year, rising to £31 million a year in 1973, net?

Mr. Page: Rising to that, and, in the 4 to 5 years, it would be forgoing about £11 million a year. That £11 million a year is the difference between what could be gained by the betterment levy and what could be gained by capital gains tax. That is the measure of the hardship caused by betterment levy, collecting from those who sell their homes, those who have to pay in advance of receipt of the moneys, and all those cases where time and time again we have complained in this House that hardship has fallen upon the payer.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Since it is not clear from the Explanatory Memorandum, will the hon. Gentleman say what is the loss to the Revenue this year? It deals only with next year.

Mr. Page: I think that it is on the face of the Memorandum. I have not the figure at my fingertips, I will get it for the right hon. Gentleman during the debate. The Memorandum says in the second line of the paragraph headed, "Financial effect of the Bill":
… the Consolidated Fund will forgo revenue of around £12 million next year.
I agree that it does not give it for this years.

Mr. Willey: We are told that it will rise to £31 million in 1973–74. It is difficult to see how the average of £11 million is arrived at.

Mr. Page: I will arrange for figures for all these years to be given to the right hon. Gentleman during the debate.

Mr. Denis Howell: Are the figures of future savings given in the Explanatory Memorandum based on constant prices, today's prices, or do they take account of inflation such as the 50 per cent. in three years that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned?

Mr. Page: The 50 per cent. that I mentioned referred to the increase in the price of land. These figures are worked

out at constant prices. Again, I will make certain about this. I admit that I have no brilliance when I come to deal with figures. I have to have them before me in black and white before I can relate them to anyone else.
Whereas I admit readily that betterment levy has netted more for the Exchequer than capital gains tax will in future, it is that excess about which we complain. It is the type of unacceptable tax which was imposed by the Land Commission Act 1967.
On 22nd July of this year, only five weeks after the General Election, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment informed the House of the Government's intention to bring in the Bill and to make all property transactions after 22nd July of this year free from betterment levy. My right hon. Friend said that in future, any transaction such as the sale, the lease or the development of land would no longer attract betterment levy, but that in respect of transactions that took place before 23rd July, the levy would continue to be assessed.
On the same day, my right hon. Friend informed the House that in due course we would abolish the Land Commission and with it, eventually, this monstrously complicated, unjust, unfair and unnecessary piece of legislation.
I wish that I could come before the House today with a one-line Bill saying:
The Land Commission Act, 1967, is hereby repealed.
If I could, I would add to it the words:
… as from 1st February, 1967.
However, this rotten egg is not so easily unscrambled. There are parts which can be readily repealed en bloc: for example, the strange device of Crownhold, that banner with a strange device to which the previous Government pinned their faith for a reduction in the price of land.
What was to happen was that the Commission would buy large tracts of land and sell them off to owner-occupiers at a very low price on condition that they gave to the Commission any profit made on the sale of them. That was such a cumbersome and unworkable scheme that it was never put into operation. But it was the keynote to the reduction in land


prices which it was claimed that the Act would bring about.
This would be the only way in which the price of land could be brought down. The Commission would buy a large area of land, saturate the market with sales under Crownhold tenure at very low prices, and thereby bring down the price. But it was so wildly impracticable and would have involved such colossal expense, such an immense number of compulsory purchase orders and such planning complications that it was never brought into operation.
The fundamental idea behind all this of being able to bring down the price of land by flooding the market with cheap sales was false. It was based on the belief that speculators were hoarding land and that there was a large amount of land which they could be forced to disgorge by the compulsory powers of the Commission. That myth was exploded very soon by the Commission when it carried out a land availability survey. What came out of that was that there was little evidence of hoarding of land. What the survey did show was that there was a shortage of land with planning permission for development, particularly in those pressure areas such as around London, the West Midlands and possibly the North-West.
So, the Commission had to resort to "Big Brother" tactics, not against the mighty land speculators but against the local planning authorities, by appealing from their decisions, and against the single plot or house owner, to try to accumulate a proper area for development. This attack on planning, this use of compulsory purchase powers on the smaller plots, was a complete admission of the defeat of the system envisaged by the Act. It was an admission by the Land Commission of the misconception of the previous Government as to the way in which land could be made available at reasonable prices.
I will explain the present Government's way of ensuring that the right land is brought to the market at the right time and at a reasonable price. First, we believe that the solution must lie with the local authorities. They must be prepared to release sufficient quantities of land for house building and to release it

in strategic advance of requirements. It is right that I should spell this out in this way because as it is our intention to destroy the Land Commission, created to collect land for development, we ought to say how we propose to make sure that development is facilitated in future.
To release land parsimoniously, acre by acre, in the wake of demand only creates artificial scarcity and fancy prices. It is not an easy judgment for any local authority to make, but I have visited many of the key authorities concerned during the past months, and I have found that they have a lively appreciation of the problems and a readiness to act. To assist them we have this week issued Circular 10/70 which asks first for a reassessment by local authorities of land availability and housing needs in their areas. I have had the assurance from the key authorities that they are undertaking that reassessment energetically.

Mr. Denis Howell: All of them?

Mr. Page: I ask the House to accept my assurance that there are a number prepared to bring forward land for development. The Circular asks that they should examine the land which they hold and, if they are holding it for use in the far future, that they should consider selling it for development now. It asks them to make a generous and immediate release of land when this can be done without detriment to good planning, safeguarding green belt. It proposes to local planning authorities a continuous monitoring of the balance between house building rates and planning permissions which are granted. Finally, it proposes that there should be wider consultations with the building industry and in this respect it is reasonable to ask local authorities to take an initiative and try to get discussions going between themselves and the building industry.

Mr. James Dempsey: Does it apply to Scotland?

Mr. Page: I have a Minister who represents Scotland sitting beside me and if there are any matters affecting Scotland he will intervene during the debate.
What I have said about the principles embodied in the Circular must be taken in the framework of modern planning. As the House will know, a modem form


of planning was instituted by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968. Local planning authorities were required to draw up structure plans in the framework of regional strategies. We are proceeding as quickly as possible with those regional strategies so as to give the structure plans of the local planning authorities a sound basis from which to start. I ask the House to look at our proposals for making land available in the framework of that new planning system.
Turning to the levy, we agree that it is right to tax gains from land. We object to the form of taxation by betterment levy because it is a duplication of the system, particularly in its double operation on current use value and development value which both have to be discovered by a separate system, and because of the injustices which have been shown to be inherent in the charge to betterment levy. We will return to one system which gives tax allowances. My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary answered a Question on 2nd December concerning the proposals for the reform of the law, so far as was necessary in connection with capital gains tax.
I find it unfortunate that because of the traditions of Finance Bills and so on it is not possible to amend capital gains tax in this Bill. I should like to have been able to put it all before the House in one Bill, but the provisions for retaining capital gains tax on current use values when the betterment levy was introduced were included in the Finance Bills and it is right that they should be amended in next year's Finance Bill. It has been said in reply to a Question that that will be carried out. I have mentioned that we are foregoing in an ordinary year, after a peak has been reached, some £11 million of betterment levy.

Mr. Frank Allaun: If the purchase of land had increased with the years, as it would have done under the Land Commission, the figure would have been greatly in excess of £11 million. Gradually it would have mounted towards £100 million, and it is this sum that the Government are giving away to land owners and speculators.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is not taking account of the fact that capital

gains tax will now cover the whole of the gain. At present it covers the increase in current use value, and betterment levy covers the development value. In future, capital gains tax will cover the whole of that area; the increase in current use value and the development value. It is, however, true that it will start from a different basis, of 1965, and that it will not apply to the sale of all residences, such as the owner-occupied home and a number of cases which were familiar under the 1967 Act. We deliberately intend that it shall not apply in these cases.
When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the purchase of land, they tend to forget about the purchase of land by the Land Commission itself. Up to the present the Commission has borrowed £13 million from the Consolidated Fund to enter into purchases of land. That would have gone up to about £40 million within a couple of years.
We are speaking of public money being used for land speculation. [Interruption.] I am sure that in some of the cases the speculation was not as good as it might have been. Indeed, we are finding that there may be losses on the sale of some of this land. It was speculating with public money in land, whatever else hon. Gentlemen opposite might like to call it. [Interruption.] If the Land Commission was carrying out its work, it would have been collecting land which somebody thought was good building land. It may be that that somebody's opinion was wrong and, as I say, there are cases where we shall unfortunately make a loss in the resale.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about speculating with public money. Does he intend to prohibit local authorities from, in the same way, speculating with public money?

Mr. Page: No. In our view local authorities are better able to deal with this matter because they have a much better idea of what is required in their localities. We had the Land Commission wandering round the country, finding bits of land here and there which it thought might be good for development. It was not in the hands of local authorities which know their districts and the sort of development that is required.
I said that I wished that the Bill could have said "The Land Commission Act, 1967, is repealed as from 7th February, 1967", when the original Measure received its Royal Assent. But that would have meant our giving back to the levy payers all the levy that has been paid in this period. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) will not have missed some of my statements on this subject from time to time and will probably quote them against me because in the early stages I was urging, when certain amendments were being made, that the small amount then concerned—it was between £1 million and £2 million—should be given back, as the people were identifiable and the assessments had not fully been made. Naturally, if that were done now, we should be giving back about £47·2 million. This is money already taken into account in public expenditure. Indeed, the previous Government, having collected it, mortgaged it in terms of anticipated expenditure.
This being so, we had to set our face against complete retrospection. We have considered partial retrospection. For example, we asked ourselves: is it possible to give some relief to certain hardship cases? Every case of payment of betterment levy I consider to be a hardship case.

Mr. Willey: All taxes are.

Mr. Page: Exactly. Where does one draw the line? It might have been possible to draw the line at 22nd July and say that no more will be collected, leaving aside the £22 million that is owing by those who have been assessed. That would have been unfair on the prompt payers, on those who are still owing money because they, justifiably, have been allowed to pay by instalments, and even on those who are dragging it out by raising points in their assessments. It would, therefore, have been unfair to have said, "We will not collect any of the money that has so far not been collected".
We might have said that we will not assess anybody else, but that would have meant the loss of about £16½ million. We estimate that as the amount which has been unassessed on chargeable acts or events before 23rd July. To have

taken that step would have been applying the sort of principle that every time the rate of income tax is altered, one must assess the fellow who has not paid for last year on the new rate for this year.
I do not think I need deal at length with the content of the Bill. In Clause 1 the date 22nd July is given as the date on which
Betterment levy shall not be charged in respect of any act or event occurring after
that date. Subsection (2) clearly says:
On such day as the Secretary of State may by order … appoint … the Land Commission shall cease to exist".
We hope to make that date 1st April, 1971, which would be convenient from the point of view of the financial year. By that time I hope that we will have reduced the staff of the Land Commission from its 1,100 a few weeks ago, because it is continually being reduced, to about the 75 to 100 who will be necessary to keep the process going while betterment levy is being assessed and collected and the land is being sold.
I hope that in the rundown of the Commission we have been able to satisfy every member of its staff in new positions. I believe that we have done this, some in Newcastle, who moved there when the Commission was established and who have so liked the town that they wish to stay there, and some by returning to the South. At the same time, we have, by not renewing staff elsewhere, been able to make an overall reduction in the total number of civil servants employed.
I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is in his place, because he will remember that in Committee my hon. Friends and I made great play about the little man with thick glasses sitting in an attic in Newcastle making orders which would mean hardship for everyone. In fact, that little man has acted most courteously and efficiently throughout the three years' life of the Land Commission. However much we may hate the betterment levy and the whole process and system of the Land Commission, we cannot but compliment those who have had to operate the system and who have done so with great efficiency and courtesy to the public.
There is no need for me to deal with the Bill Clause by Clause, as the provisions are fairly obvious. All the operations of the Land Commission are to be


handed over to the Secretary of State, who will pay to the Consolidated Fund the money collected by the Commission from the sale of land. There will no longer be a separate fund run by the Commission: it will all be run in future on the basis of the Minister administering this system in order to wind it up.
I again express my sorrow that this is not a one-line Bill, and particularly that it contains a Schedule of many pages—Schedule 2. During the course of the Bill which became the 1967 Act I had some bitter complaint to make about Schedules. Schedule 2 comes about as follows. In the 1968 Town and Country Planning Act we "imported" a Schedule from the Land Commission Act of 1967 which dealt with the general vesting declaration after compulsory purchase orders. This Bill puts those provisions directly into the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968. I know that in Committee it is for the Chair, and in the House it is for Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker to say what is and what is not in order, but I am advised that as this is merely consolidation and does not make any new law I can escape any Amendments to the Schedules. However, we shall see as the Bill progresses—

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I hoped that my hon. Friend would refer to Clause 4, which deals with compensation payable to members of the Land Commission. One does not want to act in any spirit of vindictiveness, but it is the fact that these people were appointed to the Commission in the full knowledge that the lifetime of this body would probably be only that of the last Parliament. That being so, one wonders what justification there is for paying compensation for loss of office.

Mr. Page: This is a common form Clause in such a Bill where one is dissolving a public body. It is fair in this case because some members of the Commission were engaged on a three-year contract and it is only right that compensation should be paid on the basis of that contract. I do not wish to discuss here the amounts involved but I can assure my hon. Friend that they will not put a very great burden on the taxpayers. It is right that we should take power to compensate anyone who has lost by entering into a form of contract with the Government for a period of that sort.
If I have spoken with some relish, the House will forgive me: I have never hidden my feelings about the Land Commission and the betterment levy. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: It is rather pleasant in controversial debate of this sort to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Minister for Local Government and Development on one point at least, and that is in his tribute to the work of the individuals of the Land Commission. I am grateful to him for what he said, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will concur with me.
The Minister started his story with the acknowledged declaration of his party in its election manifesto and, at all times, and in the House, perfectly honestly, that it would if it came back into office abolish the Land Commission. We were all perfectly aware of this, and one cannot complain that when a Conservative Government came into operation they carried out their own ideas to which they had given prominence.
However, I must take up just one point of omission in the Minister's story. He spoke of Conservative philosophy and the Conservative manifesto, and lightly skipped over the events of 22nd July last and then came to the present day. On 22nd July the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, made a very important statement to the House. He announced that immediate steps were being taken in this respect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said quite rightly that every attempt at instant Government had led only to chaos and confusion. The Secretary of State was implacable. He said
… this is an action which should be taken swiftly".
Swiftly, that is, by administrative action. The fact is that constitutionally and legislatively this House has had to wait five months for a Bill which any schoolboy could have drafted in two weeks.
I remind the Minister that only the other day my right hon. Friend the


Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that this is not yet the Reichstag but the House of Commons. Action of this sort must be put to the House of Commons, and must be put speedily.
On that earlier occasion my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) asked the Secretary of State what powers he had to say that he would no longer charge levy upon transactions taking place between 22nd July and the passing of the law of any amending legislation. To that, the Secretary of State replied:
The same right as the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Budget.
I can remember delays occurring between Budget Statements and the Finance Bills that followed them. I can remember what I thought was quite a long delay, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East was Chancellor of the Exchequer, when there was a gap between March and May, but that was only two months and in between we had a General Election. I think that some apology is due to the House for this enormous delay of five months during which the Government have been acting, much as Charles the First acted, without any parliamentary authority whatsoever.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when the Land Commission Bill itself was brought in it was based almost entirely on a White Paper published in September, 1965. The Bill came in in February, 1967, which means a period much longer than five months. The Bill was based on that White Paper and a lot of the law dated back to 1965. There was a period of nearly two years, not five months.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman's history is a little wrong, because we had the Second Reading within a matter of a relatively few weeks. There was a General Election and I think that I am right in saying that within five or six weeks of the opening of Parliament on 21st April, 1966, we had the Second Reading. The Minister had better look back on his history, because it seems to be as inadequate as his mathematics.
Also on that occasion in July the Secretary of State for the Environment condescended to tell the House of the measures he proposed to take, leaving the legislation to come when it might. My hon. Friend the Member for Basset-law (Mr. Ashton) asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would guarantee that land disposed of would be sold, not cheaply but at a reasonable price. To that, the Secretary of State replied:
Certainly, the Government intend to dispose of the land in a proper way at the best possible price which can be obtained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 549–51.]
I have checked that the average price of land sold by the Land Commission in the period of Government up to 30th April worked out at about £4,000 an acre. As the Secretary of State has apparently been unwilling to give us this information since, can we now be told what the average price of land per acre sold by the Commission has reached in the months since July?

Mr. Idris Owen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the land which was acquired by the Land Commission was the type of land which was not particularly desirable and that many of the acreages which have been acquired are in areas where there is not a great demand for land? I can give the right hon. Gentleman examples if he wants them.

Mr. Silkin: I might come to that point later. At the moment I am rather on the point of parliamentary approval. This is a matter on which I feel strongly. I will come to the merits later. I hope that all hon. Members are jealous of the House, of its rights and of its franchises. I have asked a question which I hope that the Minister will answer.
The next point made by the Minister, as he then was, on 22nd July was that his view was that with the abolition of the Land Commission the problem of the amount of land going forward for development would be solved. Is there a difference between the number of outline planning permissions occurring since 22nd July to date this year and those occurring in the comparable period last year?
The Minister for Local Government and Development quoted Circular 10/70, but that Circular was issued only two


or three days ago and from the note of hysteria in its wording it appears that very little is happening. This is what the Minister says in the Circular on 14th December, five months after that celebrated statement which was to solve the question of land available for development:
Unless action is taken now shortage of suitable sites could become an increasingly important constraint on the housing programme.
In his statement in July, the Secretary of State gave us the impression that he had only to make his statement saying that the Land Commission and betterment levy were dead and there would be an avalanche of suitable land available for development coming into the housing programme. If that is so, it is extraordinary that the Circular has had to be issued five months later, especially when so many of the local authorities concerned are in the hands of the Minister's political friends.
The Secretary of State said this in his Circular:
It may be that the extent of the demand has been underestimated or that the pattern of the demand has itself changed …".
No, my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby was wrong. This was not a case of instant government. This was a case of instant opposition. That is why the Tory Party was caught. That is why on 22nd July, within five weeks of the General Election result, this statement had to be made, and made swiftly, without any possible concept of what was needed to deal with the problem.
The Minister, like myself, must have read the circular of the Secretary of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. When I was Minister of Works I had a great deal to do with the N.F.B.T.E. as the sponsoring Minister. I hope that the federation will not take it amiss when I say that it was not the best friend that the Labour Government had, and its views on Land Commission were expressed at the time to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. The federation said to my right hon. Friend, as it was perfectly entitled to say, that it did not think that the Land Commission would work.
However, in its circular, which I trust that the Minister has read, the Federation says this in paragraph 6:

… it must be frankly said that the Commission made very little progress in achieving the two policy aims referred to in paragraph 4 …".
Those are the ones which the Minister briefly touched on and which come from the White Paper. The federation goes on to say this, I think very fairly:
It was, perhaps, in existence for too short a time to help in securing that the right land was available at the right time …".
If the National Federation of Building Trade Employers can say this, it is something that the Government should have taken into account.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): As the right hon. Gentleman quotes this document in aid in respect of the first part of his argument, does he think that it is right when it applies to the second part of his argument? Will he read on in the quotation at which he so conveniently stopped?

Mr. Silkin: I started the quotation earlier because I wanted to give force to the builders' own criticism of the Land Commission. The federation goes on to talk about betterment. When I deal with the question of the betterment levy then perhaps I will direct myself to that also. I was saying that the federation's point was that it was opposed to the Commission. I did not hide the words that preceded what I have just quoted. I deliberately quoted these words:
… it must be frankly said that the Commission made very little progress …
I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that on this issue I have been extremely fair and have not omitted anything.
I have dealt at some length with the question of the statement made on 22nd July, because I regard this as being a question of principle and of great importance to the House, quite apart from the question of the Commission. I hope that we shall have an apology and a full explanation of why the House has been treated in this fashion.
I come now to the purpose of the Commission, as I see it—this instrument which the Minister for Local Government honestly and fairly told us from the start that he hated and which he repeated today that he hated. I believe that the purpose is this. We live in a small and densely populated island. For that reason,


the planning of land is of infinitely more importance to us even than it is to other countries. During the post-war years land planning has come to be regarded as of vital importance throughout the world.
I hope that the House, which has heard me very tolerantly so far, will hear me just a shade more tolerantly when I say that the definition of the purpose of planning which I am about to quote I regard as being the best definition I have ever heard, for two reasons. The first reason is the clarity of the words and the second is the clarity of the speaker. He stated that the purpose of planning was
to secure a proper balance between competing demands for land, so that all the land of the country is used in the best interests of the whole people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 947.]
That was the then Minister of Town and Country Planning when introducing the Town and Country Planning Bill, 1947.
The first objective of the Commission—the Minister for Local Government and Development accepted that the objective was an honourable one—was
to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans".
That is taken from the White Paper "The Land Commission", Cmnd. 2771 of September, 1965.
The hon. Gentleman, when he spoke about the objective of securing the right land, of the right land being available at the right time, did not go on to give the three categories in which the White Paper said this objective should be framed. He talked a great deal by inference of the local situation—to obtain land for local authorities at a price they can afford. That was certainly something that the Land Commission tried to obtain. It was also necessary—indeed, vital—in its overall planning that it should help house builders if possible.
Since the Under-Secretary has asked me to read further in the circular issued by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, perhaps I should read the whole of paragraph 8 to him because I think it is of some importance:
There was, however, one respect in which the Land Commission was helpful to private house builders during its existence. It sometimes happens that a builder buys a parcel of land for development but is unable also to

buy a small appendage to it, either because the owner does not wish to sell or asks too much money for it, or indeed may not be known. Yet that extra piece may be needed to round off the parcel of land and to allow for a harmonious development. There were occasions when the Commission helped house-builders by using its powers or its resources to acquire that extra piece of land. With the abolition of the Commission, cases of difficulty may well arise in the future for house-builders in acquiring the necessary appendages to plots they already own—as is indeed implicit in the provisions of Clause 3(2) of the Bill, which allows the Commission or the Secretary of State to buy such land by agreement.
Here is another question to which I should like to direct the Under-Secretary's attention. As I read Clause 3(2), it is governed by the first subsection which says that
no further compulsory purchase order or agreement to acquire land shall be made in exercise of the powers conferred by that section.
Therefore, I take it that the only purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to buy bits of land is so that he, and then the Land Commission, may dispose of the land more easily because it might be assisted in the sale if he had owned, say, an odd acre of some other piece of land, and that this was not intended to be permanent. The reason I ask this question is that the unfortunate building trades employers thought that this was going to be the permanent basis of our legislation, but it clearly is not.

Mr. James Allason: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that this procedure which he has described was criticised heavily by hon. Members on this side of the House when we were in opposition, in that the Land Commission was threatening to use its compulsory powers on owners of small pieces of land, frightening them into giving up those pieces of land when they did not wish to do so? The Government saw the force of this and instructed the Land Commission to stop doing it.

Mr. Silkin: I was quoting what the house builders felt about it. After all, what we are concerned with is the building of houses. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is true of every local authority that exercises compulsory powers in the country.

Mr. Graham Page: May I help the hon. Gentleman? Subsection (2) does not give the Secretary of State any power


of compulsory purchase. This is abolished by Clause 3(1). It gives the Secretary of State the right to buy in any small part of land, for access or something of that sort to land which he already holds.

Mr. Silkin: In that event, the poor building trade employers are in for a very arid time.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: This is a very important point and I would not want any misapprehension to be left. The local authorities have the powers to make the acquisitions of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring. Therefore, the demise of the Land Commission will not affect the issue.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman might tell the building trades employers, because I have a feeling that they may well have been aware that such powers existed with the local authorities, but the whole point is that they were never used. The Land Commission did use them. That is why the building trades employers have paid this tribute to the work of the Land Commission.
If I may now return to the White Paper, I have been speaking about the position locally. Now I should like to discuss it regionally and nationally, for this is something with which some institution, some agency, must be able to deal. Local authorities particularly, unreformed as they are at the moment, in small groups, in penny numbers as it were, are naturally jealous, and sometimes but not always zealous, of the housing and land interests in their own area. What they cannot see is the larger picture. I hope that I take the Minister for Local Government and Development with me. The whole history of our island is changing demographically every single day. The population is increasing by 250,000, however, every year. That is the size of a new town.
Of course, it is possible to say that these men, and women who live longer, these children, shall be housed in Coke-town because Coketown has a housing programme, even though it is not necessary and not for the general good of the community that they should be housed there. It is possible to take that view, but I do not think it will be for very much longer. I think the nation will

want to see its land infinitely better and more meticulously planned. A new town—250,000 people a year—is a great number. They have to be housed, given schools, work, hospitals, roads, amenities and facilities for recreation, and all these in the most suitable areas—the right area at the right time. What is meant by the right land being made available at the right time?
May I scratch the Minister's memory a little? I want to take him back to 1963 and 1964 when both of us sat on the back benches opposite one another. At that time the then Conservative Government were boasting that they had increased their housing programme. In fact, large numbers of houses and flats were being built on the south coast of this island, being unlet and unsold for months and years. The reason was that at the price they were being built and offered for sale or to let, the people who would have taken the houses could not afford to do so. By some strange irony of fate it was the Labour Government's introduction of half rating, for totally different reasons, that helped to solve this problem, as I think the hon. Gentleman probably knows.
The fact is this. Here were the local authorities being allowed to say, "Yes, we can grant planning permission; yes, houses and flats can come here." But they were being built in the wrong place. What one has at the moment, and I suspect for the remainder of the century, are great changes of population moving across the island from one area to another. Does the Minister really mean that this can be left entirely to the local authorities? I do not believe it. My hon. Friends do not believe it, and the country, once it is fully aware of the situation, will not believe it either. This can only be planned nationally.
The Minister may say that we now have planning powers, and that is the whole purpose; the 1947 Act gave us planning powers, and that Act followed the New Towns Act of 1946. True, he may add that my hon. Friends did not use the New Towns Act for ten years, but they have been converted and they were using it and would wish to use it. But this is not enough. We need to plan the use of our scarcest commodity in this small island of ours, that is, the land, with the greatest possible care and precision.
That was the basis of the Land Commission. It was able to acquire land in advance of development. I come now to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen). He sees a lot of green fields, apparently, miles from anywhere, and he says that the Land Commission was buying the wrong land. The point is that it was using its facilities to buy land well in advance of development so that, as the years went by, land was available in the right place at the right time and, I add, at the right price.
Here, I come again to what the builders say. The Government are acting too soon. The Commission's life has been too short. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have slaughtered this poor little baby before it could grow, but it was growing, and growing at a tremendous rate.
I shall come now to what the Minister said in the last part of his speech on the question of the betterment levy, for otherwise I shall take too much of the time and patience of the House. The White Paper stated that the betterment levy was designed,
to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community and that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced.
It is a curious fact that the words "development value" set off a kind of Pavlovian reaction in hon. Members opposite, and the word "betterment" has the whole Tory Party salivating in unison. Four times this century, since 1909, progressive Governments have attempted to deal with the problem of securing for the community the benefit from increases in land values created by the community. In 1909, in the famous Budget debate, Lloyd-George said:
The growth in the value, more especially of urban sites, is due to no expenditure of capital or thought on the part of the ground owner, but entirely owing to the energy and the enterprise of a community … It is undoubtedly one of the worst evils of our present system of land tenure that instead of reaping the benefit of the common endeavour of its citizens the community has always to pay a heavy penalty to its ground landlords for putting up the value of their land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1909; Vol. IV, c. 532.]
Those words are as relevant and as true today as they were 60 years ago.
At that time, the rather complicated and difficult to administer solution introduced by David Lloyd-George was the increment of value duty of 20 per cent. on the increase in the value of land, and it took a Tory Government to repeal it.
In 1931, the short-lived Labour Government set up machinery in the Finance Act to tax land values, and the rather difficult process of recording land values was set in train. But, before the tax could operate, it was repealed by the Conservative Government, by Stanley Baldwin's Government.
The 1947 Act treated the problem in a different way, but with the same basis, by the creation of a development charge. That too, was abolished by the Tory Government of 1951–64.
When the hon. Gentleman tells us that he and his hon. Friends are happy about the second objective, that is news to us, for four times during 60 years the Tories have done their best to stop it. But now, says the Minister, we have the capital gains tax instead. My memory is not all that good, but I seem to recall that, when we debated the capital gains tax on the Finance Bill of 1965, the most zealous advocates of the tax did not come from his benches, and I have yet to believe that, when the time comes, right hon. and hon. Members opposite will leave capital gains tax as it is.
Even if the capital gains tax be left as it is, it does not deal with the main problem. Here, as I see them, are the differences. First, the tax bites only on a capital gain in the value of land. It bites only to the extent of 30 per cent. in the case of a private individual, so it is a differing rate of tax. It does not bite on the difference between a use value and a development value but bites only on the different values of land between April 1965 and the present day. The House will recall the Lavender Hill case. I doubt that that would be covered under the capital gains tax provisions. Indeed, I am fairly certain that it would not.

Mr. Graham Page: A Lavender Hill case could not occur now, after the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, could it?

Mr. Silkin: It could have occurred before the 1968 Act and be with us at this moment, could it not? In any event, by analogy, I have no doubt that a similar


case will arise which will not be caught under the capital gains tax but which would have been caught under the betterment levy.
The whole point of the betterment levy—I quote again—was
to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community".
It was not a tax in the normal sense of a tax to provide money. It was simply the expression of a moral truth, that the community creates values—it is the community which builds roads, schools, hospitals and factories, and it is the community which increases the value of land by its efforts—and all that was said was that this is a partnership.
Looking back on it, I confess that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North chose a very modest percentage. We said, "Here is a partnership between you, the land owner, and the community, and 60 per cent. of the increase in value will go to you and only 40 per cent. to the partner who made the increase possible". I imagine that my right hon. Friend, when he reflects on it, may be astonished at his own moderation.
I see the main reason why the betterment levy has been changed and why we are now to operate under the capital gains tax as stemming from the difference to which reference is made in the Explanatory Memorandum on the financial effect of the Bill, which, as the hon. Gentleman put it, is to rectify hardship. That is the reason. There is a difference of £12 million next year and £31 million the year following, thereafter levelling out, it is hoped, at £11 million. We do not know about that, so let us take the first two years, a difference of £12 million and £31 million.
Is that all hardship—£43 million worth of hardship—all widows living in small houses? Frankly, we do not believe it; neither, to be fair, does the hon. Gentleman. He believes in a kind of rough justice, but this is not rough justice. It is not justice of any sort. It does not give the community the increase in the value of land that it deserves.
It does something worse. This has to be paid for. How are the £12 million next year and £31 million the year after to be paid? The answer came—and per-

haps this is why the Bill did not come before the House until now—in the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th October. These free bonanzas, with the abolition of the betterment levy of £12 million next year and £31 million the year after, will be paid out of the public purse, and if one wants to put it that way, they will be paid for out of schoolchildren's milk and the increased cost of meals.

Mr. Graham Page: indicated dissent.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman does not think so, but can he give some alternatives? Something will have to be cut and something will have to be increased in price to make this £43 million available over the next two years.
I have spoken over-long for such a short Bill, but it is a bad Bill. It is a Bill which when we are returned to office, and we shall be, we shall have to think very hard about. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen should wait for it. When the Under-Secretary has been in the House for a few more years, he will have learned patience. Four times the community has tried to enforce a decent system of land value taxing; four times it has been defeated by a Conservative Government. The next time we shall see that the egg which the hon. Gentleman spoke about is not only a good egg, but can never be unscrambled.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: One of the pleasing traditions of a maiden speech is that one makes some reference to one's constituency and to one's predecessor. It would be difficult to choose a subject on which it was easier for me to make a maiden speech.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) may have thought of the Land Commission up to this moment as a poor little baby, but I assure him that in my area it was seen in a different light. My constituency was as affected as any in the United Kingdom during the short existence of the Land Commission. What is more, the threats of what would have happened had a Conservative Government not been returned and the Bill introduced were considerable. Many inhabitants of the Billericay area disliked the Commission so much, perhaps even irrationally, that they rejoice that the Bill is now before the House.
I readily pay tribute to my predecessor as an active and assiduous constituency man, but he would be the first to recognise that the torrents of reaction from those threatened by the activities of the Commission proved as difficult a task as any he had to face during the four and a half years that he represented the constituency. I am certain that he was frequently torn between the theory which underlay the Labour Government's introduction of the Commission and the practical effect as evidenced by the people who complained to him about its operation.
The other tradition of a maiden speech is that it should be comparatively non-controversial. I had thought that I could go a little beyond the bounds required by saying to the Labour Party that looking back to 1964, and I was a candidate at the election of that year, I can see what the Labour Party was trying to do, and what it was trying to do was largely in tune with what the public was asking.
Without benefit of hindsight, I recall talking to one of my right hon. Friends, who was then a Minister in the Conservative Government, and suggesting that a Measure whereby the public would benefit to some extent from land profits should be introduced into our manifesto. It was not thought right at the time, but, as the House will be aware, a similar scheme was subsequently introduced as Conservative policy in 1965. With an immodesty which ill befits a maiden speaker, may I say that if my right hon. Friend of those days had listened to what I said during the 1964 General Election, the Labour Party might not have been returned to power and the Bill would have been totally unnecessary. As I made a stand of this sort on that occasion, it is right to repeat that stand today.
There is a case for the profits from the ownership of development land being taken care of through the tax system, but the right hon. Member for Deptford will not be surprised if I do not and cannot go as far as he did. That we are wise in abolishing the Land Commission and betterment levy but continuing to take care of these profits, within the philosophy of the Conservative Government, through the normal taxation system is undoubted.

It is something of which I entirely approve.
Equally, the Labour Party will not welcome my telling it where the Labour Government made a mistake in introducing the Land Commission and betterment levy some years ago. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will forgive me if I say that there were two mistakes in using the sledgehammer to crack a nut. First, the Labour Government brought the owner-occupier into the scheme, not because of the additional inflow of money to the coffers of the Treasury but rather in the interests of what they regarded as equity and justice. I understand that and to some extent respect it, but it is one respect in which a mistake was made.
The second was the creation of a large impersonal body which was remote from the people affected and against which there was no redress on such occasions as, for example, municipal elections. I have many examples in my constituency of ordinary people who were intensely and perhaps irrationally resentful of the Commission's operations and resentful of the requirements to move home when they did not want to do so—I hasten to add that none of this happened and it was all just threatened under the activities of the Commission—resentful of the change of compensation as they saw it which was to be their lot and resentful particularly of the betterment levy.
I concede that the Bill will certainly not eliminate the need for compulsory purchase and certainly will not touch compensation, but I qualified my reference to that by saying that no doubt the resentment was irrational. But that there was resentment is undoubted. It had reached the point when people in responsible positions in the community were threatening to lie in front of the first bulldozer to appear in the area as a result of the Commission's activities. No doubt this was an emotional reaction, no doubt it was dramatic and no doubt it was unfair to the Commission. I join my hon. Friend in saying that those officials of the Commission with whom I came into contact were extremely reasonable men. But in the context, whether it was emotional, dramatic and unfair did not matter, for this was a genuine feeling among those concerned.
Some of the difficulty at least arose out of the remoteness of the decision taken. From my area, it was some 60 miles to the nearest location of the Land Commission. The very feeling that the people who were threatening to force one to move against one's wishes were away "up there" somewhere and it was difficult to get into contact with them contributed as much to the resentment as anything else. If my hon. Friend, as a by-product of what I have said, agrees to recollect what I have said when he is discussing the reform of local government, perhaps it will be no bad thing.
On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the abolition of the Land Commission. I welcome particularly the abolition of the betterment levy: first, because, in my view, in an inflationary situation part of the betterment is bogus anyway; secondly, because the existence of the levy has not, as promised, increased the supply of building land; lastly, because it is not necessary to have this levy to ensure that the nation gains some advantage in the shape of profit from development land. I end as I began by saying on behalf of my constituents that I welcome this Bill unreservedly.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The whole House will join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) on his maiden speech. We thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to hearing him again. He referred to his predecessor, Mr. Moonman, for whom I had very warm regard and admiration. Party politics aside, I am sure that he will take just as important a part in the proceedings of this House as his predecessor did.
I must, however, correct one thing which the hon. Member for Billericay said. He is in error. He is being far too modest. He was not elected to this House because of the Land Commission, and I will put in a statistical correction. If anyone has attracted criticism over the Land Commission, then no one has attracted it more than I have, but mine was one of the two constituencies at the General Election which showed a swing to Labour.
Of course, we are not surprised by the title of the Bill but we are surprised by its contents. The Minister seems to be

more of a statutory contortionist than a legislator. He explained that the Bill abolishes the betterment levy, but we know that that has already been done by Ministerial diktat. With a Freudian lapse, the Secretary of State thought for a moment that he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was not. It was a very unconstitutional way in which to behave.
The Bill is not only retrospective; it is a Bill of indemnity. When it comes to the question of ordinary taxation, the Minister told us that we have to look at some Parliamentary Answer to a Parliamentary Question to find out what is happening. We have to await the Finance Bill and then, apparently, we shall again get retrospective legislation. I always thought that the hon. Gentleman and I were both steadfast against retrospective legislation. He knows that I was against it in relation to the Land Commission Act, and he supported me on that occasion.

Mr. Graham Page: But the right hon. Gentleman had to do exactly the same thing as I am having to do—leave it to the Finance Bill.

Mr. Willey: But the levy and the relevant Finance Bill came into operation on the same day. What I object to is that the Secretary of State's action became effective in July but we have to wait until the next Finance Bill to be certain of what is going to be done then.
Again, the dissolution of the Land Commission is to be done by Statutory Instrument. But, as the Minister has said, he does not dissolve the Land Commission, he becomes the Land Commission. He takes over all its functions laid down by the Act. That is a pretty impertinent personation, but it is worse still in other Clauses of the Bill, where we find that he is being emasculated. He is not retaining one vital power that he should retain if he is to keep to himself the powers and functions of the Land Commission.
Then, as the hon. Gentleman has confessed, although this is a short Bill, he has managed to include three Schedules, with two appendices embodying further Schedules. Schedule 1 provides a few Amendments to the Act, and Schedule 2 repeals a few Sections. So far as one can see, the only reason for these repeals is


the whim of the Minister. But what shocks me is that under Clause 5(1) the Minister can repeal the Act by Statutory Instrument. Can he repeal the Act as a whole or repeal it, against according to whim, Section by Section, as he pleases? This is very important. I am sure that the whole House was surprised to learn that the Minister can come here with a repeal Bill and not even know what is in the Act he is repealing.
The Lavender Hill case has been mentioned. That was a most important case. Land speculators had bought for £7,500 and then sold for £250,000; then they wanted another £150,000 from Enfield Corporation. We dealt with that in the Land Commission Act. Does not the hon. Gentleman know that this provision was not in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, but in the Land Commission Act, 1967?

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his correction. The provision is in Section 86 of the Land Commission Act, 1967, in which the Lavender Hill case was settled once and for all. Such a case could not arise again. I was wrong in quoting the 1968 Act. We are not repealing Section 86 of the Land Commission Act.

Mr. Willey: I am rather alarmed by this situation. Civil Servants like to keep Ministers busy. Suppose the Minister has nothing to do. A civil servant mentions that there are two or three Sections of the Land Commission Act which he can repeal. If this matter had not been raised in the House today, in his ignorance the Minister might well have repealed that vital Section of the Act. I emphasise all this because there is no justification for the slipshod haste which the Government have shown over this matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) referred to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1953. Mr. Harold Macmillan came to the House in 1953 and said that he believed that the current legislation in some respects was defective. He believed that there was a threat of a black market and that development might be paralysed. The Minister cannot say that on this occasion. He cannot say that development is threatened by the Land Com-

mission Act. He cannot say that there is a black market because of it.
The hon. Gentleman should at least be surprised that he cannot say such a thing because, although he is one of the most mild-mannered of men, he joined his colleagues in making, as a principal plank in opposing the Act, the claim that development would be disrupted and held up. He said that there would be "chaos and disorder in building development". That has not happened. But because it has not happened, we might at least have reasonable propriety in dealing with the legislation.
The Conservative Party manifesto claimed that the betterment levy had put up the price of land and houses. If that is true, then the capital gains tax will do exactly the same thing. There is not the slightest reason to think that it would do anything different. But, in fact, it is not true, or, at any rate, it is non-proven. The Land Commission, the repository of information on this question, has stated that the levy has not increased the price of land. The levy itself is pure gain.
Let us take what has been said by the Minister for Local Government and Development. He was asked about this matter the other day at Question Time and said that comprehensive information was not available about prices of land for all purposes. He then said that, although there was no such information available, there was information about the increase in house prices. He thought it was difficult to say how much of the increase was attributable to the activities of the Land Commission and how much to other factors. This is a long way from the dogmatism of the Conservative Party manifesto.
I prefer to take the index of prices of new houses published by the hon. Gentleman's Department. Those figures provide no evidence that prices have been affected by the levy. I take house prices for the very good reason that I feel a good deal of nonsense is spoken on both sides of the House about land prices.
I repeat what I said at the time of the Land Commission White Paper:
In the case of housing land it is the price that the houses themselves fetch which primarily determines the price which will be paid for the land on which the houses are put.


In short, I said that the high price of land for development is a reflection of its prospective economic use. I said that two consequences followed. If I again may quote myself, I said: first, save by the Land Commission buying or collecting the levy, the price of land is not likely to be reduced unless the price of houses is reduced; secondly, it follows that the argument that levy affects price is a weak argument because in land transactions the price primarily depends on relative strengths of the bargaining position of the landowner in relation to the purchaser for development. The bargaining position of the landowner, of course, is immensely strengthened by the fact that he is sitting on an appreciating asset. I argued from this that the all-important thing was to increase the scale of Land Commission activities as rapidly as possible. The Minister has mentioned local authorities, but the Land Commission can buy land 40 per cent. cheaper than local authorities. The Land Commission bought net after deducting the levy. On the second point, it is obvious that the activities of the Land Commission weaken the bargaining position of the landowner. In fact, many landowners have so complained.
It is not the failure of the levy which has impelled Government action, but its success. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are not able to prove the case that the levy has affected prices. What upsets them is the fact it has succeeded and the fact that smoothly, without any difficulty, the figure rose from £½ million in the first year to £21 million last year. Far more important than the £21 million was the £31 million which was assessed during that year. Even more important still is the revelation in the Explanatory Memorandum that although half of the cases have been excluded from liability to levy and all the small cases have been removed, the Government estimate that the levy in a few years would reach £65 million.
All this has happened against the background of general acceptance of the levy. I feel that it would have been possible, as we said in the White Paper we would do, to increase the levy to 45 per cent. and then to 50 per cent. at reasonably short intervals. I believe that the Land Commission had sufficiently established the betterment levy so as to achieve these

objectives, and personally I regret that this was not done.
Let us take the Conservative position on this question. The Minister for Local Government and Development has referred to the history of the matter. The Conservatives begin not by saying anything about capital gains but by saying "if we accept a levy, it must be moderate". This is why I reminded the Minister of what he has said about chaos and disruption. In the light of what has been achieved, nobody can suggest that the levy was immoderate and excessive. For this reason the Conservatives turned to capital gains.
But I have some doubts about all this. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was leading for the Conservatives on land matters, he said in explaining Conservative policy on land prices and land acquisition that he was against the capital gains tax. He pointed out that it was a very expensive tax and went on to say that he considered capital gains a dud tax. If that is the opinion expressed by the Conservative spokesman at the time, we surely now must be anxious and apprehensive. What are the Government's intentions about capital gains tax as a whole?
In the past the hon. Gentleman and I have argued somewhat tediously about the differences between capital gains tax and betterment levy, and I will not rehearse the argument again. I will put it as succinctly as I can again by quoting myself:
We believe development value more than any other value is created by the community rather than by the efforts of the land owner and it is morally unjustifiable that he should be able to profit from it at the expense of the community.
That is the difference in approach between the two parties on betterment. But, in fact, this has nothing to do with what is actually happening. The Government had to disguise what they were doing by resorting to the switch from betterment levy to capital gains. They are doing what Conservatives have always done: they are taking money out of a large number of pockets and putting it into remarkably few—and, believe me, they are remarkably few.
The hon. Member knows the total number of assessments. He talks about £11 million and £31 million, but we are


concerned about how many people are receiving this money. It is being received by people who can be counted in thousands, and by them alone. The hon. Member says that he does not know what the figure will be this year—but afterwards it will be £12 million rising to £31 million. The point is that the money is going into very few pockets. This massive pay-off will go to those people who are concerned with large land transactions—the large landowners and the large land speculators.
I do not dispute the estimates made in the Explanatory Memorandum, but I am sure that the amounts will be considerably greater. We shall never know. We knew what the betterment levy produced, but once it is merged with other transactions, and particularly when losses are set off against it, no one will know, not even the Minister, what the return will be on land sales.

Mr. Peter Rees: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he does not agree that the same amount would probably be collected through the existing tax system? I fail to understand his point.

Mr. Willey: The hon. and learned Member has failed to read the Explanatory Memorandum, which points out that a sum ranging from £11 million or £12 million to £31 million will be lost to the Revenue. It is clear that the amount will be more, because it is lost in the general capital gains tax and will not be identifiable.
We must examine this matter in the context of the Government's general fiscal policy. Let us consider dental charges. Those who go to the dentist will have to pay £12 million or more as a result of increased charges. Is it any consolation to know that an identical £12 million will go to a few large landowners and speculators? The Minister says that it was a hardship tax. What will the people attending the dentists think?
What about school milk? The Government are taking £6 million away there. What is the Government's first priority in the distribution of money from the Exchequer? They say, "There are some poor, impoverished, large landowners"—they cannot call them small land-

owners, any longer—"and large speculators." Apparently they must receive forthwith—without waiting for legislation—about £11 million this year. The same consideration applies in the case of prescription charges, welfare milk and school meals. This is simply the Tory policy of taking money from the many, and most hardly hit, and distributing it to those who are best off. The landowners and land speculators have a tenacious hold on the Government that must turn the brewers green with envy.
So much for the levy; I now turn to the Land Commission. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the staff. It seems that, overall, there will be no reduction in staff. The hon. Member cannot say that he is using the Land Commission to reduce the number of civil servants.

Mr. Graham Page: I did not say that. I said that there would be an overall reduction by not filling up wastages in other Departments.

Mr. Willey: Other Departments will look after that. A special problem arises in Newcastle, which is of considerable importance to the northern development area. I hope that the Government will pay regard to this aspect of the problem and will recognise that the placing of the headquarters in Newcastle was of some significance to the Northern Region. I join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the Commission's staff, but I also pay tribute—and I am surprised that the Minister did not—to the chairmen and members of the Commission. I do not think that I could have appointed a more distinguished or experienced Commission.
That is not unimportant, because after the members of the Commission had been in office for some time they declared their belief that the Commission was the most practical and economical way of achieving the objectives stated in the White Paper. The Minister nodded when I referred to the distinguished character of the members of the Commission and to their unrivalled experience. They were agreed about the objectives. It was this impressive consensus, in the light of their experience, which said that they found that it was the most practical and economical way of achieving the White Paper's objectives.
The objective that we are now concerned with is the objective of bringing the right land forward at the right time. That is of vital importance. For instance, we must remember that 40 per cent. of private enterprise housing is built by builders who employ fewer than 20 men. It is unrealistic to expect firms operating on that scale to carry stocks of land. There is always a state of imminent crisis in the development industry. The Secretary of State is now trying to make planning the main culprit. Incidentally, planning is a field in which he has direct responsibility, so if planning is at fault he had better do something about it.
All that the Minister does is to repeat what his predecessors has said. Within limits he is quite right, but within severe limits. We cannot solve the problem through planning unless we absolutely debase the currency of planning. In any case, this is not a quarrel with the Land Commission. The members of the Commission advised Ministers on this matter, and co-operated with the Department. Indeed, they attracted to themselves some unpopularity when, to help the Minister, they applied for planning consent.
However much we improve the machinery of planning, I believe, as most people do, that we need some agency to help bring forward land for development. The Secretary of State and the Minister concede this. They say that it can be done by local authorities. I pause to ask the hon. Gentleman: why come forward with that proposal at this time? We are awaiting the Secretary of State's proposals for the reorganisation of local government. Everyone is convinced of the inadequacy of local government. If the Secretary of State had come to the House with proposals for the reorganisation of local government and had implemented those proposals, I should be willing to consider whether there was a case for relying upon the local authorities to carry out this function. I am not always in favour of centralisation. To the contrary. However, we know that we have not at present got local authorities which can cope with this problem.
The Minister is doing what his predecessors did. When Mr. Harold Macmillan dissolved the Central Land

Board, what did he say? He said: "The local authorities will do this." They have not done it. We had the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), in the light of his experience, saying, "We need a land bank." We also had the Secretary of State for Social Services saying, "We need a national agency." Every Minister who has been responsible for local authorities—I am waiting for my right hon. Friend, when he has had time to reflect, to confirm this—has found that local authorities are not capable of performing this function.
I should now like to call in aid the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. When the right hon. Gentleman was leading for the Conservatives on land and land prices he conceded that the local authorities could not discharge this function, and said: "The trouble is that the local authorities have tried to drive too hard a bargain and buy cheaply and then failed to be ruthless enough about compulsory acquisition." The intriguing footnote on Tory policy is: goodbye lower land prices. It is, therefore, hypocritical to complain of the ruthless powers of the Land Commission when they were prepared to exhort local authorities to behave even more ruthlessly.
But this is not the real trouble. There are other difficulties—financial difficulties. Local authorities find it unacceptable, intolerable, to bear the financial burden for private development. The Secretary of State has recognised this in his circular.
There are many other difficulties. I have rehearsed them before. I need not rehearse them again. The proof is shown by our experience.
I should mention one important matter which has bedevilled the mechanism of promoting better land use. We are desperately short of qualified manpower. We cannot dispose of and deal with land without lawyers, surveyors and valuers—and they are in short supply. When I looked at the problem I thought that it was wasteful to find these highly-skilled people in penny packets all over the country. They are doing an executive job. This is not policy. The local authorities and the Department are responsible for planning and policy. This is the executive arm of planning, the administrative arm.
When I discussed this matter with the leaders of several of the large local authorities they all agreed in principle that this work ought to be rationalised. I suggested that either the Land Commission could act as agent or that, for all I cared, they could act as agents for the Land Commission. But it was wasteful to have duplication of these valuation departments everywhere. Therefore, I should think that one of the attractions of centralising this work is the great shortage of qualified manpower, which has hindered so disastrously the bringing forward of land for development.
The Government's argument is: so be it; if the local authorities have been or will be ineffective, the Land Commission has not been worth while. That is an exaggeration. I concede that the Land Commission ought to have done more. I have explained how important I regarded the activities of the Land Commission concerning land prices and the bringing forward of land for development.
I have told the House previously—this is set out in the first Report of the Land Commission—that I asked the Commission to build up the scale of its acquisition programme within the first two years as rapidly as possible and to concentrate on the needs of house-builders. I also indicated the areas of acute shortage. I regret that was not done.
On prices, I asked the Land Commission to make land available for housing on concessionary terms. I was prepared to give a direction, if necessary, because the Land Commission could have been in difficulties in the early stages. I regret, again, that was not done.
But there is no point in crying over spilt milk. If the Government are anxious about this matter, the remedy surely is not to dissolve the Land Commission but to expedite its work. So we have to ask: as this is such an obvious conclusion, why have the Government not taken this course? Why have they acted so precipitately?
I find that explanation in the last Report of the Land Commission. That report shows that the Land Commission had brought forward and made available for development about 2,000 acres of land. That might be modest, but it was nonetheless a significant contribution to easing

our difficulties. We must realise that the Land Commission has been bringing forward land that was not coming forward in any other way. This was land which otherwise would not have been brought forward. But, far more important—

Mr. Michael Heseltine: What possible evidence has the right hon. Gentleman for suggesting that the land would not have been forthcoming in any other way?

Mr. Willey: The Land Commission has said time and again that it has not intervened unless the land was not coming forward.

Mr. Heseltine: rose—

Mr. Willey: It has also said that its activities cannot be judged merely by the extent of its own acquisitions, because, in hundreds of cases, it has brought land forward without actually acquiring it itself.

Mr. Heseltine: Would it not be some indication of the degree of urgency to explain to the House what proportion of the 2,800 acres had been acquired compulsorily and what proportion had been acquired voluntarily? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to do that.

Mr. Wiley: The hon. Gentleman has not understood me. He has intervened at a critical point in the light of what I am about to say. This is not related to compulsory purchase or purchase by agreement. It is land which was designated for development but was not coming on the market.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry to press the point, but it is crucial. If, as is the case, 75 per cent. of the land acquired by the Land Commission was acquired voluntarily, is there not a prima facie case that it would have come on the market in any event?

Mr. Willey: It may have come on the market at some time, but it was not being purchased by developers. It was the intervention of the Land Commission which made the land ready and available for development. The hon. Gentleman has not yet had time to learn by experience what he is talking about.
I have mentioned that 40 per cent. of private enterprise building is carried out by firms with fewer than 20 employees. This type of builder very often wants land where the services have already been put


in. This again was a job which the Land Commission was to do.
Far more important than the 2,000 acres which the Land Commission brought forward and made available was the fact that there were more than 9,000 acres valued at £42 million which were approved for acquisition; in other words, in the pipeline. In addition, another 13,500 acres, valued at £68 million were under consideration and were also in the pipeline.
That land was in the process of being brought forward for development and it was at that point that the Secretary of State and the Minister intervened to bring the whole process to a halt. They threw all that away, and already, within a few months, we have the Secretary of State sending out his panic circular because he is afraid of an increasing scarcity of land for development. He would be far better employed if he were to concentrate on helping the Land Commission to provide the staff that it needs to see that that land is brought forward rapidly to the developer.
The Minister is not unintelligent. He knows that if he had accepted this advice, and that if the Land Commission had brought forward that land for development, apart from easing the present land shortage there would have been another result. The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister talk about land prices, but when they do so they exclude the Land Commission. As far as the Land Commission is concerned, there has been a dramatic fall in land prices because it buys its land less levy.
We have talked about the appreciating value of land. When the Land Commission is sitting on the land, it is the Commission which obtains this appreciating value, and the remarkable thing about the figures in the third Report is the wide margin of profit that is made merely by holding land which is going forward for development. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister had concentrated on bringing this land forward for development they would not only have alleviated the present land shortage but would have provided the commission with a substantial profit. In fact, they would have been horrified to find that, having carried out these transactions, they had increased the Commission's land fund by about £35 mil-

lion to £45 million. If they had done that they would have demonstrated, as the Commission itself believed, that this was the most economical and efficient way of dealing with land.
With a land fund of £35 million to £40 million the Land Commission's own hopes of dealing with the intractable problem of twilight areas might have been met. With a land fund of £35 million to £45 million, even the right hon. Member for Streatham—who believes in the land bank—and the Civic Trust might have realised that with this fund behind it the Commission might have helped to provide what we desperately need in our urban development, and that is space. I believe that with that sort of backing we could have begun to deal with the problem of mixed development. I believe one of the scars on our urban development is the existence of ghettoes on workingclass housing estates. Last, but not least, with the land fund so augmented the Commission could have made concessionary sales of land for house-building on a large scale.
The Commission is being dissolved not because of its failure but because the Conservatives appreciate the success of the levy. Although the Land Commission was slow in starting, the Conservatives saw the potential of its development in helping land development. I should not be so biased as to allege that the Conservative Government willed Rachmanism, but they followed a rigid, selfish doctrinaire policy which inevitably resulted in Rachmanism. They are now equally following a rigid, doctrinaire policy which will bring about the frustration of decent planning, which will set land speculators deliberately to worsen land scarcity, and which will bring back disturbance and anger at the scandal of land prices.

7.06 p.m.

Mr. Idris Owen: I cannot hope to compare my effort with that of the more experienced Members of the House. We have had professionalism from my Front Bench and from the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The debate so far has been conducted in a most generous and, indeed, charming way, and I hope that what I say will not engender too much heat.
I bring to the debate, not the experience of Front Bench debating and the


interplay of drafting procedures, but the practical experience of land development. I should like to express my appreciation of the efforts of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North and his Government in 1964 in recognising that there was a grave and serious land problem. No one was more critical than I was when, at that time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), in a public speech in my constituency, failed to recognise that there was a land problem.
However, tonight I am discussing the Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill in no uncertain way, and I say that few will lament the passing of the Commission. As is evidenced by the number of hon. Members on the benches opposite, the hope is that the body will be suitably interred without the usual funeral oration. The high hopes of success for the Land Commission lay only in the hearts and minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was, indeed, a most cumbersome agency, and the problem which existed in 1964 when hon. Gentlemen opposite took office still existed in June, 1970.
Certainly hon. Members on this side of the House could not share the enthusiastic predictions of leading right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I support that viewpoint with a few quotations, if I may crave the indulgence of the House to do so. In the 1966 election campaign it was said:
Labour's Land Commission will take the excess profits from the land speculator. It will ensure an adequate supply of land to meet Labour's housing targets.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said in "New Britain" that their land policy would bring land prices down to reasonable levels, and that it would also unfreeze substantial areas of land. Another right hon. Member said in his election address:
A racket busting Land Commission is on the way.
We have news for them. In a few moments I will offer a few examples of acquisitions in the Manchester conurbation.
Let us recognise the criteria when the Land Commission was established. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North has made certain statements this evening. Perhaps I might refer to the Second Reading debate, in the course of which

it was said that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be satisfied until they had brought down land prices. They will take some satisfying. They also said that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes must be reduced, and that, if it was accepted that the state of land prices was wholly indefensible, there was an unanswerable case for the Land Commission.
The whole tenor of their arguments was that land prices must come down and that they must break the racket. I have news for them. They did not break the racket, they got in on it. To use the Americanism, they got a piece of the action.
Let us look at the criteria. Since its inception, did the Commission break the land racket? Did it bring down land prices? Did it help the young couples seeking homes at prices they could afford? Did it release more land for housing? That was the basic criteria in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they established the Commission.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North has said that the Commission was a success. There are diverse opinions in that respect. There is a right hon. Member of the Opposition—he is not here this evening—who has very positive views on the success of the Land Commission. I will quote the right hon. and very respected Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). On television on 1st October of this year—not three years ago—he said:
The Land Commission was a total failure. Quite clearly it was a total failure.
What about the emphasis there? He said, "The Land Commission was …" Note the past tense; he has accepted it. He has been at the funeral.

Mr. Bob Brown: My right hon. Friend may write drivel, but that does not make him right.

Mr. Owen: Whether the right hon. Member writes drivel or not, as the hon. Gentleman mentions, he was given a very important position on the then Government's Front Bench and so that is the reward for writing drivel. If hon. Members opposite disagree, they can take it up with him. That is his assessment of the success of the Land Commission. As a newcomer, who am I to argue, when one considers the experience of the right


hon. Member for Coventry, East and the fact that he is a Front Bench speaker and a former Minister.
I ask the House to examine the claims made for the Land Commission, that it would break the land racket and bring land prices down. I speak with some experience, and I should like to explain to the hon. Gentleman that I was one of the deputation from the N.F.B.T. and F.R.H.B. that visited him in Whitehall to discuss the problems. I have been in the land development business—the third generation since 1894. In my constituency, £6,000 per acre was paid in 1965 for a small parcel of land for flat development. Precisely two months ago, within one-third of a mile of that parcel an identical piece was sold across the highway at £20,000 per acre. So much for the right hon. Member's claim that the Land Commission would bring down prices.
Another parcel of two acres in a predominantly working-class area, surrounded by council houses and small pre-war houses, was offered for sale for the small builder—who can build economically—contiguous with a cemetery. It was worth in 1964 approximately £1,500 per acre. It brought £31,200 for two acres.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I am sure that everyone in the House agrees with the hon. Gentleman that this is a fantastic exorbitant, extortionate situation. But will it not continue? If the Land Commission is abolished, even greater profits will remain with the sellers of the land.

Mr. Owen: I thank the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). I will draw attention to that matter and try to answer it later. I do not wish to bore the House, because it must be agonising to hear these prices. In Cheadle, a constituency contiguous with mine, land in 1965 was priced at £5,625 per acre, and a parcel of land was sold in 1970 for £50,000 an acre.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Gentleman is making our case.

Mr. Owen: But this is since the establishment of the Land Commission, before the Commission is abolished, under the administration totally of hon. Members opposite. They were the gentlemen who were going to break the land racket. I repeat: they got in on it.
The consequences are most interesting, because this is where the basis of the failure of the Commission lies. As a practical person, I want the theorist to understand the practical point of view. On the prices I have quoted, the levy could be £8,000 per acre. On those high figures, £8,000 could have been and was levied in some instances, that is, 40 per cent. of the difference between the existing use value and the selling price.
Forty per cent., based on a nominal 10 to the acre type of development in the peripheral areas—which all hon. Gentlemen know about, the small detached houses with garages for the young, up-and-coming executive—would mean that the purchaser would have to pay £800 in levy. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take note of that point. Do not have any sympathy for the land developer or the house builder, because he merely passes on his charges to the consuming public. Whatever the developer pays, he will add it on, and a profit on top. The poor consuming public will face this. Someone quoted the former right hon. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs, the then Mr. Lloyd George. I believe that it was in the House that he said:
No matter how you legislate, the consumer will pay in the end".
Remember that, because it is very important.
Let us see how the consumer paid. In those houses that were purchased at the prices I have indicated, with that sort of levy, on a 20-year mortgage, the levy factor in the house amounted to 32s. 6d. for every week for 20 years. On a 25-year mortgage it was 30s. a week. So much for breaking the racket. That was passed on to the home-hungry, young people in the peripheral districts, the dormitory areas, as a result of the levy they were paying to the Land Commission, because it had been put on the selling price of the house.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Are we to take it, then, that on the next slice of land in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or area which is not subject to the levy under the system that we are now to revert to, by the Government's dissolution of the Land Commission, there will be a reduction of £800 per dwelling being sold to the up-and-coming young executive and the young


married couple? Let the hon. Gentleman tell that to the House.

Mr. Owen: That is a fair question. Let me look at it in this way. Once a racket has been established and once a Government have got in on the racket, it is very difficult overnight to break the spell.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman appears to have misunderstood my question. He was arguing that £800 was added to the price of a house as a result of the levy. According to his argument, if the levy is removed, do we take it that there will be a reduction of £800 per house in his constituency?

Mr. Owen: The levy will be removed as a result of the Bill, but, as my hon. Friend said, it is to be replaced by capital gains tax. In the case of developers, it will be replaced by 42½ per cent. corporation tax.
I know that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like it, but Labour's Land Commission failed to bring down the price of land, and that was the tenor of their argument when they introduced their Bill.
Those were the sorts of prices that the levy created for the owner-occupier—

Mr. Frank Allaun: They were going up before the Land Commission was established.

Mr. Owen: We have had the Land Commission three years. I hope that we shall begin to bury it tonight. In three years of operation, the Commission's yield was £23½ million and its administrative charges were £6½ million. That sum represents 27½ per cent. of its transactions, which makes it a fairly expensive agency. If an estate agent charged an hon. Member opposite 27½ per cent., he would be screaming for his blood. But that was the agency fee of the Commission, if I may so describe its administrative costs.
My hon. Friend made the point that it is cheaper ultimately to collect betterment by way of the normal taxation process, either by capital gains tax or corporation tax. There is no doubt in my mind that that will be so ultimately.
We have heard that the Land Commission had one great virtue irrespective of

reducing the price of land. It was said that it would result in forward planning and in bringing forward land for future use. I have more news for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is my own line: I have been searching, too. Very close to my home, the Land Commission acquired 48 acres. I do not know on what basis it bought it, but it did not do its homework. If it had done some market research, it would have found that there was no demand for houses in the area.

Mr. Freeson: Was that in Stockport?

Mr. Owen: I am not prepared to say where it was.

Mr. Freeson: There is certainly a demand in Stockport.

Mr. Owen: There is in Stockport, but this was somewhere south of Stockport. A number of local builders had acquired small parcels of land, and their houses were not selling. The industrial development in the area did not demand any more housing. The Land Commission's area office has been literally hawking the land about, and it has found no takers. So much for forward planning.
As a result of the Commission's three years of trading, it managed to dispose of 320 acres of land. That represents 100 acres per year, which is not very good.
The Labour Party said:
There are thousands of owner-occupiers who have voted Conservative in the past and who have learned their lesson as a result of increased land prices.
If that was true, what lesson have they learned as a result of the last five years? If that was true then, certainly they have learned a bitter lesson now.
I would be the first to criticise the Conservative Government who ran our affairs between 1959 and 1964. They failed to recognise our land needs and they paid what amounted sometimes to a sickening lip-service to a property-owning democracy. They wanted people to own their homes. But land was released on a drip-feed principle. The Government were completely in the hands of the planners and, as the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North said, were not prepared to assert themselves in a proper manner. We have now Circular 10/70 which invites but does not direct local planning authorities to review their


land needs on the basis of their planning policies. I have some news for my right hon. and hon. Friends. Local planning authorities will not take the slightest notice. Clearly my right hon. and hon. Friends have more faith in local planning authorities than I have. Some of our local planning offices have become the citadels of restriction and the Shangri-Las of bureaucrats. It is time we did something about it.
I have a certain civic consciousness. I am a member of the National Trust and of a number of civic societies. I would fight to preserve our green belts. But what is meant by "green belt"? Is it every square yard of land which has an amenity value for the man who buys a house and says, "Pull up the ladder, Jack. I'm all right"? There are thousands of acres which are preserved merely for vested interests on the periphery and not for the wellbeing of the nation. It has to stop.
I do not advocate intrusion into green belts. I want to see more green belt for people's enjoyment. But I do not want green belt merely to preserve someone's property value. The electorates in our planning areas are so close to the planners that they exert an undue influence through their elected representatives, and we see vested interest at its worst. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do more by way of directives to ensure that land is released.
I am satisfied that the people who can build homes most competitively are our small builders. They have no major overheads and they are constantly on the job, turning out homes with the maximum economy. Over the last decade, they have been denied land. They cannot compete with the moguls of the construction and development industries who can use vast sums of public capital to acquire the land that they need. When small builders go to an auction, they resemble a hungry pack of wolves fighting over a meagre carcase. Yet they are the people who are capable of building houses at the kinds of prices that my right hon. and hon. Friends want. The Government have said repeatedly that they want an element of competition in every facet of house building. If our small builders are denied the raw material that they require, this objective will never be achieved.
That is why I welcome Circular 10/70, on the assumption that it is a sincere endeavour to break these citadels of restriction, because that is where the trouble lies. One cannot have a framework for house building with rationing of land on the drip-feed system. There must be much more forward planning. There must be much more land released. If there were a grain famine in Liverpool and grain ships were seen coming down the Mersey, the price of grain would drop. If we would only release more land for which it was beyond the capability of the nation to pay, the price would come down. I am convinced of that, and I know that my hon. Friends are convinced of it. I want them to translate their dreams and aspirations into action.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: We have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), and I am grateful to him for bringing some colour into what could be a technical debate. We have followed him through Shangri-la, from the court of the Grand Mogul, across the battlefield where the wolves were gathering, and we were a little disappointed when we reached the end. He ended by congratulating his right hon. Friends on introducing a Circular the uselessness of which he had clearly demonstrated earlier on.
This frustration was apparent in the hon. Gentleman's whole approach. He demonstrated the terribly high land prices and the need for forward planning; yet the Bill, even if one takes the harshest view of the Land Commission, will destroy the one instrument that we have to meet those two purposes and put nothing whatever in its place.
The hon. Member gave us horrific figures of land prices. This is not a new story to many of us. I understood him to argue that if there had not been the levy these prices would all have been very much less. He regards the levy as simply putting an extra bit on to the price. I do not believe that to be true. I believe the argument of my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Idris Owen: It exacerbated a very serious problem by adding 40 per cent. to the market price of land.

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged. The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that he did say what I thought—that he regards the levy as a sheer addition to the price. I presume therefore, that he must, if his argument has any logic, take the same view about having to pay capital gains tax on the price of land. If he feels that by abolishing the levy we should wipe out this addition to the price of land, he would presumably want to see capital gains tax wiped out as well.
This is what alarms us. We have the Government, with their half alibi of abolishing the levy, saying that there will still be capital gains tax. We all knew, when we heard that, that it would not be very long before we should be told about the iniquities of capital gains tax and the need to do something about that. We did not except that cry to be raised in the same debate from the Government back benches, but here it is already.
This is, at this time of the year, an extraordinary Bill to bring forward, because it has been clearly demonstrated that it will make a gift of, at a modest estimate, some £11 million a year to people very few of whom are widows and orphans and many of whom are comfortably off. It is considered seemly at Christmas for there to be a whip-round or several whip-rounds among the more fortunate members of the community for the benefit of the less fortunate. What we have here is a sort of "anti-Christmas box", where the public at large have to put into the box and a limited number of quite well-off people will profit. It is as if the poor old man by the forest fence were obliged to take flesh and wine to the court of King Wenceslas for the benefit of the more fortunate people living there.
This problem of the price of land and what to do about increasing land values is and must be a problem as old as civilisation, because once there is an established community with a population growing and with a standard of life rising, there is bound to be an increased demand for land. People rightly want to live more spaciously, not only in their private houses but in their public buildings, and there is a demand for more land.
A community which does nothing about this problem faces two difficulties.

First, it allows the flagrant example of large unearned gains to go into the hands of private people, often in the most arbitrary manner. It is difficult to get social cohesion and what we are taught nowadays is called "one nation" with these flagrant examples of unearned gain.
The other damage that it does the community is that of making the cost of providing decent public services bigger and bigger. The community has to have hospitals, roads, schools and so on. If it does nothing about this problem of the growing price of land, it finds that it has to pay more and more.
There have been many attempts to solve this problem. One of the earliest ways in this country was the feudal device that if one owned more than a certain amount of land one had to do military service. It would, I suppose, be administratively impracticable to introduce that again today, but if we introduced it, it could have one or other, or a bit of two, interesting results.
It might, of course, alleviate the concern of the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of people in the Armed Forces. More likely, so many of those so liable would be so anxious to divest themselves of their liability that a great deal of land would come on the market and a considerable part of the problem of high land prices would be solved. But, having cast a regretful look backwards at that solution, we must accept that it is not administratively practicable today.
But my point is not merely flippant: it is to illustrate that this is an age-old problem, that if one does not and cannot adopt that kind of early solution, one must find another. This has been rubbed into the community by far-sighted people for a long time. One of the minority reports of the Balfour Committee on Industry and Trade, reporting towards the end of the 1920s, drew attention to the fact that it was inevitable that the public would need, for public purposes, in the coming years growing amounts of land, and that the public would be very wise to set to work in good time to buy them up before they became too dear. The nation has paid an enormously heavy price that that advice was never taken, or taken only to a very limited degree and much too late.
Then, of course, there was the wise attempt made to deal with this by the


father of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), Lord Silkin, when Minister of Town and Country Planning. It was possible to make administrative criticism of his betterment provisions, but what was disastrous was to throw away the whole of that provision for getting the increased value of land into the public purse and put nothing in its place.
That is what gave us the appalling profiteering of the 1950s and 1960s. Beside this problem of trying to get a good chunk of the increased value of land into the public purse, there is also the problem of trying to see that our land is best used. There are both the financial problem and a planning problem, and it seems to me that to deal with them both there must be a national body of some kind.
I will not argue—it is not part of our case—that everything was perfect with the Land Commission, but I am interested to find that the amount of positive evidence advanced against it in this debate has been remarkably thin in view of the generalities of abuse that there had been before. Nearly all the instances of its alleged shortcomings seem to be in places whose names we cannot be told and against persons whose names are obscure. Admittedly, as with all human institutions, one can find fault with it.
We are still left with a considerable problem. Having wiped out the Land Commission, there is no national body either to do the forward planning or to try to see that a good chunk of the increased value of land goes into the public purse. The door is again wide open to the most unlimited profiteering and for a continuation of precisely the evils which were graphically described by the hon. Member for Stockport, North, who made a good case not for abolishing the Land Commission but for improving it. We were disappointed that he stopped at the point when we thought his speech was leading to the conclusion that this should be driven home to his hon. Friends. I stress the importance of ensuring that the increased value of land, which is the community's creation, is not handed over simply for private profiteering.
A few days ago the dispute in the power industry came to an end and the

Government insisted that the words "the national interest" should be included in the terms of reference of the court of inquiry. I have always held strongly that in the determination of any wage, salary, price, rent or anything else it should not be left to the mere bargaining power of the two parties but that the national interest should be there.
If that is true, as the Government assert it is, in the negotiation of wages and incomes from work, it should also be true in any transaction that involves getting wealth from property. It is outrageous that the Government should be insisting on the national interest when it is a question of incomes on one day of the week and a few days later, by this Bill, throwing the national interest out of the window to enable people who have no need for it to collect £11 million, £20 million or perhaps £31 million which must be paid for in ways my hon. Friends have described. That is what we are asked to do in this Measure, and that is why I hope the House will refuse to do it.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I congratulate the Government on their ingenuity in fulfilling their election pledge to abolish the Land Commission as early as 23rd July. This has been criticised by hon. Gentlemen opposite as being an unnecessarily early step. However, a quick decision was needed simply in order to get planning applications started.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite complain because, they say, a tremendous volume of land has not been coming on the market immediately. I remind them that it is a question of getting planning consents. There are parcels of land all over the country which have been deliberately withheld from the market because of people's dislike of the levy. That land will soon be coming forward. Indeed, planning applications are now being submitted.
The Act had three main things wrong with it. First, it was incomprehensible. I had thought of opening it at any one of its 189 pages to show, by reading an extract, how only the experts can have even an idea of what it means. Secondly, it was unfair in its impact on different people. Thirdly, it was unsuccessful, and


I regard this as being the one that condemns it the most. One might forgive legislation which is incomprehensive and somewhat unfair, but for an enactment to be unsucessful as well damns it out of hand. For these reasons the Land Commission deserves to go.
I agree with the principle of betterment being taxed. In 1964 I, with some of my hon. Friends, urged that this should be done, but my Front Bench did not agree at that time. However, there is intense difficulty in taxing betterment, as the Labour Government found, despite the 189 pages of their Act. Their attempt has not worked.
We must then consider the effect of action of this type on the price of land. The Land Commission in effect put a tax on land, and that resulted in land prices rising even higher. Can anybody deny that taxes increase prices? It might be a sheer coincidence, but it seems remarkable that not only has the price of land increased as a result of this tax but that every commodity, from cigarettes to petrol, increases in price when it is taxed.

Mr. Frank Allaun: What about income tax?

Mr. Allason: That is a tax on income, which is not a commodity.
What the Government are proposing is a reduction in tax. We do not yet know what the result will be. At least we can be sure that a £15 million reduction in tax will result from the Bill, because we have a saving of £11 million plus the saving of the cost of the Land Commission. I am sure that gradually the price of land to house builders will be reduced, though this will happen indirectly because it will mean a slowing down in the rate of increase of land prices.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is not in his place, because I wish to rebuke him for calling this a speculator's charter. Language of that type is not necessary in this context. This is not a handout to the rich. How can a reduction in taxation be a handout when it is only a reduction in a deduction from an individual's personal property? All taxes go sky high when Labour is in power, and when we reduce them they take the

scandalous step of calling it a handout to the rich.
They should remember from whom they have been taking the money. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North implied that very few ordinary people have been paying the levy; but that is not my experience. I do not know of all these gigantic land speculators who pay huge sums in levies, but I have in my constituency a widow who, had her husband lived, would have been allowed to build a house in the garden for the children without attacting levy, because the couple owned the property before the operative date. Because the husband died and the widow inherited after the operative date, she had to pay levy on the project. That kind of hardship was not remedied when some hardships were put right in 1969. It is people like that who will benefit by the removal of the levy.
Powers of land acquisition already existed at the first appointed day for development corporations and local authorities if acquisition was necessary in the public interest. Nevertheless, on the first appointed day the Commission was given similar powers. The result has been the acquisition of 2,800 acres as a result of the administration of 950 civil servants—not much more than two acres acquired for each civil servant engaged. Fewer than 3,000 acres have been acquired in three years when our land needs were 50,000 acres a year. The acreage acquired has been chicken feed, and quite useless as a contribution to our needs.
Things were to become very different after the second appointed day, because then the Commission was to have widespread powers to take almost any land which was available. It meant the virtual nationalisation of building land. The Leader of the Opposition said on 7th March, 1966:
We said we would take the urban building lands on which planning permission has been granted into public ownership. That is what the Land Commission will do.
It is a good thing that we have not got as far as the second appointed day, and now we never shall, but now that the Commission is being abolished we have the problem of land assembly. We are left at the moment with development corporation and local authority procedures, neither of which is satisfactory. The trouble with the development corporation


procedure is that it is necessary to set up a new corporation in each case. As to local government assembly, there are small authorities which are not very competent in assembling the necessary land, and there are some very large authorities, which are perhaps a great deal too competent.
For instance, the Greater London Council is at present acquiring any small piece of land it can find anywhere in the Home Counties or within the boundaries of London regardless of the wishes of the local authorities or the local people concerned. It has acquired 40 acres in the middle of Tring, in my constituency, which will completely unbalance the situation there. A small rural town of 8,000 people living a very quiet life will suddenly find descending on it 2,000 Londoners who have a rather different demand on life. Such actions are very much resented. A concentrated influx of G.L.C. tenants can completely upset the balance and character of a small town or rural area—

Mr. Allaun: But where are those people to live?

Mr. Allason: I say that it is the wrong method of assembling land. There is need for large-scale assembly, but that is not the duty of Government. The trouble with the Commission is that it is a body which knows exactly what is needed, but the truth is that local authorities should judge their own needs, and it is they who should have a satisfactory land assembly system.
The Commission's demerit was that it only assembled land and could not go further. The development corporation system has the demerit that a new body has to be set up on each occasion. I should like to see perhaps a group of local authorities combining to form something which was equivalent to a development corporation but which could not only assemble land but subsequently develop it, probably in conjunction with private enterprise.

Mr. Julius Silverman: With compulsory powers of purchase?

Mr. Allason: Yes, I fear so, because this group would be equivalent to the development corporation, which must have compulsory powers. I do not like compulsory powers, but in cases like

this they are necessary. Local authorities have the powers already, and they are necessary in the extended system I am suggesting.

Mr. Denis Howell: The House is following with great interest what the hon. Member proposes, but would he tell us what, apart from the betterment levy, the difference is between what he proposes and the Commission which is being abolished?

Mr. Allason: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not been following me. I have mentioned two differences. The first is that the Commission is a centralised body, while I am speaking of a land assembly organisation based on either a group of local authorities or one large local authority. An area within a county would be satisfactory. Secondly, the Commission had the demerit that it could only assemble land and not process it. My form of development authority, similar to the development corporation but mobile, would be able to process the land as well as assemble it.
I followed the career of the Land Commission from its birth and through the Measure's many stages here, and I am glad to be in at its death as well. The Act was at least well-meaning but was, in fact, a bumbling Socialist plot.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I am amazed at the schizophrenic nature of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). He is a most amiable man, and I like him personally but he is a nice man with nasty ideas. I find it difficult to reconcile such a nice person, on the one hand, with such reactionary ideas, on the other. He referred to the case of 2,000 Londoners who must find houses somewhere, but not where the land is best suited for them.
The Government's several proposals in other matters will squeeze ordinary families and squeeze their social services. The Government are to increase charges for prescription, health, spectacles, school meals and school milk. At the same time as saving a few miserable pounds here and there, they are to give away £11 million, £12 million, and £31 million net to the big landowners and the big land speculators. I feel strongly about this outrage.
I was amazed when I heard the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) use such legalistic terms about something which is a scandal. It is the kind of thing that we read about in the News of the World and the People when smaller men are involved. A huge gift is to be made to the large landowners and speculators. One nation indeed!

Mr. Allason: And to my widow.

Mr. Allaun: I will come to the question of the hon. Gentleman's widow. I believe that the amounts which would have accrued for the benefit of the national revenue would have greatly increased as the amount of land purchased was increased. After all, a child of two or three is not expected to have acquired all the power of an adult; nor could the Land Commission be expected to have reached after only two or three years the level of performance which it would have attained if it had been allowed to continue in operation for several years.
When the hon. Member for Crosby was tackled about the net saving, he said, "This is only because of the equivalent hardship." That is not correct. With the exception of one or two rare anomalies, the small man—the owner-occupier—was in 1969 excluded from the ambit of the Commission's operations. Therefore, the hardship excuse does not hold water.
The levy which is being handed back to the large landowners is the amount they would have paid in levy. Even Tory Members have on occasion mentioned the racket and scandal of land prices. One hon. Conservative Member, now retired, told us that he bought 10 acres of land for £36,000. Planning permission to build on the land was given. Within two years—he told us there was nothing dishonest about it—he sold the land for £1 million. I have previously quoted a case from the Lea Valley.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much the person concerned would have paid on that deal under the present capital gains proposals?

Mr. Allaun: He would have paid 30 per cent. Under the Land Commission scheme he would have paid 40 per cent.,

then 45 per cent., and as far as I am concerned it could have gone much higher, because that was unearned income—a fortune, gained not through any effort of the owner but through the efforts of the community around that plot of land.
This is what is happening. Once planning permission is granted potato fields become a goldmine overnight. It is antisocial to abolish an attempt to deal with such injustices without putting anything in its place. I am surprised at upright men opposite supporting this action.
I quote now an extract from the book "The Aristocrats" by Roy Perrott, published in 1968. On page 30 these words of Viscount Scarsdale of Kedleston Hall are given:
'But with land everything depends on the Government of the day', Lord Scarsdale went on, telling me an anecdote to illustrate the pitfalls of a landowner's life. 'When the Labour Government was in a while ago I had to sell seven acres to the local council to build a school on and they paid me the absurdly low price of £100 an acre. When the Tories got in we saw fair play for a change and the council paid us £38,000 for another seven acres.'

Mr. Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the Pilgrim case, which gave rise to the decision to pay fair compensation for compulsory purchase?

Mr. Allaun: What is fair to the landowner is usually unfair to the community. I return to the basic principle that if land increases in value through the efforts of the community the increase in value should be returned to the community which created it.
The real fortunes from land speculation were made between 1959 and 1964 following the removal of the last controls on land profiteering which were imposed in 1947 by Lord Silkin, the distinguished father of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). I do not know how many millionaires were created during that period.
I want now to look at the receiving end. The Greater London Council must pay £1,600 for the land on which it builds one flat—not a block of flats—before a single brick is laid. That adds 30s. to the rent of the council tenant—not for bricks and mortar or for the builder's labour, but for the plot of land on which one flat is built. Even the National Federation of Building Trade


Employers, which as a rule is not exactly pro-Labour, admits in the circular it issued this week the heavy charge that is incurred because of land prices.
The Government are not proposing to put anything in the place of the Land Commission. They are not proposing a new form of control. They are merely removing a control which I believe did not go far enough. Will the price of land stop rising? Everybody here—we are not children; we are sophisticated people—knows that the price of land will now rise higher than ever. The argument that it was the levy that increased the price of land because the levy was added to the price is not valid. Naturally a landowner will secure the maximum price for his land in any case whether there is a levy or not.
The Labour Party stands by its principle on this issue. As a national executive member of the party I can say that we shall consider in the next few weeks and months what to put in place of the Land Commission because we are not prepared or content to let the situation continue as it is without any control or public ownership.
There are several alternatives. We might well decide to return to the proposals made by Lord Silkin. There is much to be said for them. We certainly ought to give the local authorities greater power to acquire land—or perhaps we ought to have straight nationalisation of the land; it is not for me to say. But these things will be discussed. I assure hon. Members opposite that if they think this is the end of the battle, they are very much mistaken.
Let us look briefly at one or two of the arguments that have been used against us tonight. It was said, for example, that there were 1,100 civil servants employed by the Land Commission costing, I think, £2½ million. There were far too many to do far too little. Most of them were probably sitting on their backsides most of the time. I should point out that I am not an anti-civil servant chap. I do not believe in using civil servants as scapegoats. Nevertheless I think that they were under-employed, and they cost £2½ million. Despite that, there was a good saving to the country, rising to at least £31 million by the year 1973–74. Another argument was that the Act

has not helped with the purchase of land, but let me quote from the builders:
There were occasions when the Commission helped housebuilders by using its powers or its resources to acquire that extra piece of land. With the abolition of the Commission, cases of difficulty may well arise in the future for housebuilders in acquiring the necessary appendages to plots they already own …
I do not pretend that the building employers are defending the Land Commission; they are not. They want to see it abolished because that is part of their ideology. Nevertheless they admit that the Commission was useful to them.
I now deal with this question of the loopholes in the Bill—and there are some. Let me give one startling example. If one developed the land before 6th April, 1967, one escaped the betterment levy. So all over the country in February and March, 1967, there were people digging little trenches across pieces of land—

Mr. Bob Brown: And driving stakes in.

Mr. Allaun: —and they then said it was developed and paid no levy. When one is involved with millions of £s—because these landed estates are of that sort of value—the most expensive, experienced and sophisticated lawyers in the country are employed. We shall accordingly be in difficulty in finding legislation through which they will find it impossible to drive a horse and cart. I am very glad to see from the nods of assent that there are one or two hon. Members opposite who appreciate that fact. But it must be done. Otherwise the community is being held to ransom.
I have only one major criticism of the Land Commission—not that it went too far but that it did not go far or fast enough. Somehow we must devise legislation which will avoid what has happened—the fact that it did not succeed in doing some of the things that many of us here desperately wanted it to do.
I shall keep to my promise and conclude now because no doubt we shall have further opportunities to speak in Standing Committee. This Bill will give freedom—freedom to land speculators to hold the community to ransom.

8.14 p.m.

Miss Mary Holt: I welcome this Bill for the dissolution of


the Land Commission and the abolition of betterment levy, but I must say that I find the subject very complicated, and I shall therefore have to make considerable use of my notes.
My first reason for saying this is that which was advanced by almost every speaker on this side of the House, that the Act, betterment levy and the Land Commission failed to achieve their objects. They failed to stabilise land prices and make land available for building. In fact they had the opposite effect. Every speaker on this side of the House has stressed the way in which betterment levy sent the price of houses soaring. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) gave some specific examples from his constituency. I can quote parallel examples in my area. In 1964 one acre of land was fetching £4,000 and is now bringing anything up to £30,000. In a suburb of a northern industrial town where there is no great pressure of population, half an acre of land sold recently for £15,000.
The house purchaser was the one to suffer from betterment levy, which was designed originally to catch the speculator. In practice it hurt the small man doing a bit of building. Many people with a little capital suddenly found that, having sold a bit of land for building purposes, they had to pay hundreds of pounds. The big builder, by contrast, got away with it because he passed on the levy to the purchaser of the land. So we have a law which was bred out of envy and other people's good fortune, proving to be like the proverbial cobweb where the big flies break through and the lesser ones are caught.
Betterment levy was illogical in the tax system. It hit only increases in development value and not increases in existing use value. A man who bought land for £1,000 which he sold after five years for £10,000 for building had to pay levy of 40 per cent., whereas a man who bought a house for £1,000 which he did not occupy and which he could sell after five years for £10,000 had to pay capital gains tax of 30 per cent. but not betterment levy of 40 per cent. There was an element of unfairness there which made betterment levy undesirable. In my submission, it is far better for those gains

to be taxed through the capital gains system, as will happen under this Bill.
Another aspect of the unfairness of betterment levy was the way in which it was not paid by statutory bodies such as the National Coal Board and other nationalised bodies. In that case, there was a hidden element of subsidy to them, as against commercial undertakings.
This leads me to another reason. The abolition of betterment levy will simplify the tax system because it will reduce the number of taxes with different rules.
It will also reduce the occasions when lawyers and professional men have to waste their time trying to understand the Land Commission Act, which is almost incomprehensible, as a previous speaker on this side of the House has said. It took a year to draft. It will take anyone a year to master its provisions. It has 122 Sections and 15 Schedules. The words and expressions carrying specialised meanings number 188. Some of the meanings are intended just for special parts of the Act. Listen to this. Section 64(1) states:
In this Part of this Act 'project of material development' means any project or scheme in pursuance of which any material development is, or is to be, carried out.
Sections like this are as clear as mud. Ordinary people never understood either the Land Commission or betterment levy. They had the good sense not to try.
I believe Dr. Johnson once said to somebody who could not follow his argument, "I can give you an explanation, but I cannot give you understanding." It would have been beyond Dr. Johnson's powers to give an explanation, let alone an understanding of the Land Commission Act.
As for the Land Commission itself, I regard it as a body which introduced new and dangerous practices into the normal procedure of compulsory acquisition by Government bodies. Before the Land Commission Act, a Government body which had to acquire land compulsorily was always limited by Act of Parliament to specifying the purpose for which its powers could be used and it was required to show its actions to be in accordance with its powers. Under the Act, after the second appointed day—which is defined in the Act—the Land Commission could compulsorily acquire


land without specifying the purpose or showing that it had acted within its powers. Let no one quote to me Section 7(4), which says that the Commission must give notice of its reasons. Things are quite different when no purposes are laid down. Also, the Minister was empowered to make an order preventing the owners of private property from having the opportunity to make objections.
These were Star Chamber methods. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) described the Land Commission as a "poor little baby". It was a little baby with dragon's teeth. In the interest of individual freedom, I am glad to welcome the Bill to make the Land Commission disappear. I am only sorry that the end of the betterment levy is fixed for 22nd July and not 19th June, the day after the General Election.
I welcome the Bill, and I strongly support it.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown: I must ask the indulgence of the House, not because I am making a maiden speech but because I feel under the weather. I am running a temperature—and some of the speeches from the benches opposite have not improved my condition—but I felt that I had a duty to my constituents to stay here and say a few words on behalf of Newcastle, West.
My constituents and all of us who live in the area are most anxious about the continuing rape of the North-East under this Government, a practice which is typified by the Bill now before us. I realise that "rape" is an emotive word, and one's reactions to it will depend on whether one is at the receiving end. We are certainly on phe receiving end in the North-East, and we do not like it at all. It is fair to say that what we are witnessing is the continuing butchery of the North-East on the altar of doctrinaire policies, and the proposals in the Bill are only too typical of the policies announced since 18th June, especially those pursued in relation to my area.
No matter what the Minister may say about what consultations there have been on the relocation of staff in other Government Departments, over 200 jobs at Kenton Bar in my constituency have now gone, or will have gone when the Land Commission is wound up.
It is true, as the Minister said, that the Government have a mandate. I do not deny that they have a complete mandate to introduce the Bill at this stage. But this gives all the more reason to ask—I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with this—why, knowing the plight of the North-East and of my constituency in particular, the Government were not decent enough to try to provide alternative employment in Newcastle, West, in other words, to send up to the North-East from the over-crowded Metropolis another Government office offering at least 200 jobs—and probably ten times that—to take over the magnificent building which the Land Commission will be leaving.
Some hon. Members from the "soft underbelly" of the South-East may well ask, "What is he belly-aching about? After all, it is only 200 jobs". That makes me turn to the leading article in this morning's Newcastle Journal:
Early last month, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, told Dame Irene Ward, M.P. for Tynemouth, that her hopes for the area would be fulfilled 'beyond her wildest dreams'.
But when? At present, the North is enduring a waking nightmare. More than 60,000 are out of work, 800 jobs have been lost in Sunderland in the last three weeks, and the future for many more in shipbuilding and engineering is uncertain, if not bleak.
It is no use the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—I am sorry she is not here, because I should like to say a lot more—extolling the virtues, to paraphrase her words, of her two lovely friends in the Cabinet who will look after the North-East. She may be thrilled to have two lovely friends in the Cabinet who will, she thinks, look after the North-East, but I am not nearly so thrilled.
If the Industrial Relations Bill was rightly referred to as a lawyer's charter, this Bill must be seen as a speculator's charter. I make no apology for repeating words already used in the debate. No fewer than 22,835 acres of land were under consideration for acquisition, approved for acquisition, or due for completion of purchase at the end of March this year, at a cost of about £162½ million.
Having visited its head office in my constituency and having seen the chaps there at work over several years now, I know that the Land Commission has


really settled down to the job. It has gained the expertise which was needed. But now it is to be dismantled purely in the interests of party politics. There is no other reason but the doctrinaire politics of the party opposite.
There has been much play made—the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) to respond about it—of the widow's mite and of the hardship suffered through the impact of the betterment levy and the way which the incidence of development value made levy due. In my constituency, I had the case of one such little widow, whose late husband had purchased a small plot of land about 10 miles outside the city in the immediate pre-war years. The plots were then going for about £5 for something like half an acre. They intended to build their little dream house, but they never got round to it, and about 40 years later he passed on.
That little plot of land, which was purchased for about £5, had increased in value no less than 2,000 times, so that the widow was faced with having to pay betterment levy of £3,000 or £4,000.
I put it to the House that I should dearly like to be subject to that sort of hardship, and I am certain that thousands of my constituents would, too. We should be made financially for life.
The Under-Secretary of State is not in his place at the moment, but I hope that the Minister will pass this question to him. Have land prices risen more steeply since July, since the time of the announcement of the Government's intention, than they did formerly?
It would be a great tragedy if the Commission's very useful powers were to be lost altogether, although they might not have been used as widely or as extensively as I should have liked. I am thinking of, for instance, the power to secure the overall development of an area, particularly when ownership is fragmented so that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get a comprehensive plan by voluntary agreement, the power to acquire and dispose of land and properties on behalf of local authorities or other bodies which already have C.P.O. powers, particularly necessary when land overlaps local authority boundaries.
If the Tories had not sat on their beams on the Maud Report but had got down to implementing it by introducing bigger local authorities, such as the Greater Tyneside single-tier, all-purpose authority, there would have been no problem, because such an authority would have inherited the job from the Land Commission, but the Conservatives have done nothing about the Maud Report and it will be difficult to resolve this type of problem. Yet this is one of the matters for which some such body is most required.
If ever there was absolute nonsense, it is Circular 10/70. It is meant to be an appeal to local authorities to release land to private builders so that more houses may be built, but the appeal should have been directed in the opposite direction. My constituency is a county borough constituency, but it might be regarded as an illegitimate county borough constituency because it includes a large rural hinterland. Through it is a main road along which a "spec" builder has cornered at least three miles of ribbon development land. If there is any land shortage, it will be the local authority which is in difficulty. This is a major problem in the area.
In view of the time, I will now permit other hon. Members to take part in the debate.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in the debate and I hope to keep my remarks short. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) will forgive me if I do not comment on his rather specialised observations. However, as a Member for a constituency in the "soft under-belly of the South-East", I should like to point out that we, too, have unemployment problems though we are very conscious of this.
I have had occasion over the past three years for professional reasons to become uncomfortably but closely acquainted with the betterment levy, and I should like to concentrate my remarks on that. The three years' acquaintance I have had with it has not made me particularly fond of it. I listened with great interest to the apologia pro vita sub of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), but I read with rather more


interest his turnover article in The Times in March, 1969, which suggested that he was not so very fond of the legislative progeny which he had sired. He is entitled to change his mind, but I should have thought, with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), that this was a case for a quick and decent burial and then hurrying off to the wake.
As right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have reminded us, these fiscal corpses tend to be resurrected every generation, and I hope that they will, therefore, allow me to make one or two comments on their last efforts in this respect, because they have reminded us that the problem has long been recognised, and it has been recognised by Conservative Members. Let us accept that there is a problem and that there is a case for taxing development values. I would not have stated the problem in quite such tendentious phrases as those used by Labour Members because I doubt whether those values have been created entirely by the community. They are mostly the result of the distortion of the market caused by planning legislation; but let that pass.
How was that problem faced in the period running up to 1965? There has been much talk about speculators and land developers. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said that we tended to salivate in Pavlovian terms when we heard the words "development value". Labour Members tend to salivate when they hear "speculator" or "land developer". However, speculators and land developers serve a purpose and let us not treat them too harshly. In any event, the point I want to make is that under the existing fiscal system, even prior to 1964, they could have been taxed. They could be taxed—to go into technical detail—under Case 1 of Schedule D. I put it in that way because the right hon. Gentleman is a member of the legal profession and should recognise it. Beyond that, a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a short-term gains tax. I was not particularly enamoured of that either, but the problem had not passed unrecognised by my right hon. Friends.
Came 1965 and the last Government introduced a very elaborate capital gains tax. It is right to point out that, with

one major exception, capital gains tax would have sufficed to tax most of the transactions that are caught by betterment levy. The solitary major exception is that of a project of material development—in other words, a development by a land owner which is not followed by a sale.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Case C.

Mr. Rees: Yes, it comes under Case C. There is a case for not taxing that kind of transaction because no receipt flows in. I deprecate the tendency to be found in fiscal measures introduced by the last Government to tax transactions which do not result in cash flowing to the taxpayer. One can understand that one may or should tax a taxpayer when he has something on which to pay tax, but to do so on a purely notional gain is a rather harsh procedure. With that one main exception—and I must contradict what the right hon. Gentleman said here—most transactions would have been caught by the existing fiscal system prior to 1967. He was not making a valid point in saying that base values would have been different. It is true that they would have been, but in many cases it would have gone rather more hardly against the taxpayers.
So we reached the position where there was no real fiscal point to the levy from the point of view of raising revenue. I must point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that I treat with considerable reserve the figures of tax forgone appearing in the Explanatory Memorandum. I do not see how they are arrived at It must be a matter of pure speculation as to how much land will come on the market at any given time and at what price. Drawing on my professional experience, I doubt whether in the long run more than a trivial amount will be lost to the Exchequer from the abolition of betterment levy. Starting from that premise, the betterment levy can only be justified as a pure political gesture.
We on this side of the House have learned to live with pure political fiscal gestures from right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but I ask them at what cost this gesture was made. First, they had to call into being a whole new organ of Government. In principle, it must be right to concentrate the administration of


all fiscal measures in two organs of Government—the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. They are highly experienced and long established. There cannot be a case for proliferation of tax-collecting agencies. Then, the last Government had to introduce a Measure of startling complexity. I shall not elaborate on that because my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) dealt with it very adequately. In his leisure moments, the right hon. Gentleman should have another look at the Land Commission Act. It covers 180 pages, with 17 Schedules which are incomprehensible to everyone except Sir Desmond Heap, to whom I am happy to pay a tribute.

Mr. John Silkin: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman read the Industrial Relations Bill?

Mr. Rees: Indeed I have, and I am happy to draw an analogy. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) characterised that Bill as a lawyer's paradise. That came oddly from the Opposition because if anything was a lawyer's paradise—or perhaps more truthfully a professional man's hell—it was the Land Commission Act. There is nothing comparable in complexity between the two Measures. It may be difficult in practice to work out certain passages in the Industrial Relations Bill—we must wait and see—but for sheer obscurity of language and for sheer ambiguity and difficulty I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Land Commission Act is preferable.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn—I am sorry she is not here—recommended that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment should take Lloyd's List Law Reports to bed with him. If she is in need of stimulation or sedation and gets bored with Lloyd's List, I commend to her the 17 Schedules of the Land Commission Act.
When legislation of such complexity is introduced, it hits not only the speculators and land developers but also small people. Therefore, we must count the cost not only in terms of civil servants, but in terms of the cost of professional advice and time. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) made the telling point—I am also sorry that he

is not here at the moment since I agree with some, if not all, of his points—that it is difficult to draw complex legislation in such a way that there will be no loopholes. The well-informed, ingenious person, who is forewarned and forearmed, will be able to drive a horse and cart through involved and complicated legislation of this kind. I could point out some loopholes in this Act, but it is now a matter of legal history—or we hope it soon will be. It is the small people, who are unaware of the complexity of the problem and who fall slap into difficulties about whom we should be worrying.
What is involved is not just the question of civil servants' salaries, but the phenomenal cost of professional services which hon. Gentlemen opposite have imposed on the country by their ill-judged fiscal measures. Their performance has been lamentable over the past six years, and we are all paying for it.
From time to time we are all encouraged to go in for fiscal simplification. We recently had an interesting debate in this House on the Inland Revenue Estimates, and an intriguing speech was made by the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), who was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the last Administration. It is a little surprising that he himself should talk about fiscal simplification—and I would inform the House that I warned the hon. and learned Gentleman that I would make this point—when it was the hon. and learned Gentleman himself who was largely responsible for the introduction of measures relating to interest and for considerable elaboration of estate duty. But let that pass, since we are delighted that he has been converted on the road from Somerset House. It is idle to talk about fiscal simplification unless we are prepared to cut out large sectors of the present fiscal system. This is the only way in which we shall make a real impact.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing in this Bill. He has made a bold and genuine attempt to simplify the fiscal system. He has done what we have all been wanting to do for years. He has cut out a whole thicket from the tax jungle in which we all grope. I congratulate him and shall support the Bill with real pleasure.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I hope the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) will forgive me if I do not comment on his arguments. Quite apart from his burst of Latin, which frankly was beyond my powers of translation, the fiscal aspects of the Bill are not one on which I am competent to speak.
I should like to say a little about the price of land, about which we have heard a good deal today. We have spoken about the acquisition of land, but I should like to deal with the disposal of land. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) spoke with refreshing frankness in this debate, and I welcomed his remarks. The impact of land prices impinges directly on the general public most personally and seriously in relation to the price of an individual's home.
Earlier today I had the privilege of presenting a Ten Minute Rule Bill on rentcharges on freehold land which is a specialised legal problem that besets us in the Bristol area. During my researches one of the most difficult things I tried to discover was whether these rentcharges affect the selling price of a house. As the House will know, there is a tremendous difficulty in comparing house prices. So many factors affect the situation. For example, there is the position of the house, the part of the country in which it is situated, the demand, the customers' needs and idiosyncrasies.
The only specific example of a genuine reduction in the initial capital cost of land was where a development had been carried out by Bristol Corporation in conjunction with a national developer. Here, everybody admitted that since the corporation was involved special factors arose which did not apply in normal circumstances.
What protection has the purchaser in the question of land prices? Little attention has been given to this matter tonight. I have a submission on behalf of the Bristol Law Society on the question of rentcharges. The society says that should rentcharges on freehold property be abolished there would be an increase of leasehold. After that submission, I wrote back and gave an example of a plot of land in Bristol which was sold for £275,000 with permission for the erection of 91 units of housing. I said, "With

this capital cost of over £3,000 per plot, what do you imagine would be the level of ground rent imposed, should this be put out on leasehold?" I received a reply to the effect that this was hypothetical, and that it was not known but there was no doubt that the rentcharge, or the ground rent, would be similar whether it was for freehold or leasehold. That seems astonishing to me. If it is true, the general public are being asked to buy the whole of that land, except for a small proportion, for a small ground rent. That is the sort of thing that should be occupying the Minister's mind.
I am indebted to the Minister for one of the few examples of comparability that I have been able to find. I understand that he served on the Standing Committee on the Leasehold Reform Bill, during the course of which he gave the example of an estate in the Birmingham area where a line was drawn down the middle and on one side the houses were sold freehold and on the other they were sold leasehold. He said that leasehold houses were snapped up like hot cakes. The prices were about £2,500 for the freehold houses and £2,000 for the leasehold houses. There the general public had something that they could get hold of and compare, and see whether they were prepared to take a little less, in terms of tenure, for leasehold, in return for a reduction in price.
The individual is in a terribly weak position when he is buying a house, and that is a serious situation. The most revealing remark that I had from an estate agent during my investigation—he was a sales negotiator for a national organisation—was, "My three years with this organisation as a sales negotiator taught me that prices of property were geared to demand … Generally speaking, it is held in the building industry that if houses sell too readily at a price, then the price for that property is too low, and a price increase is justified." That is what happened in that area. As each phase of the estate was released there was an increase in price. It was simply a question of demand.
Many people can shop around. I have a near relative who spent years—he made a hobby of it—going around looking at houses. He eventually settled on the Sussex coast. He was a bachelor, who had retired, and he could afford to take


his time. Many people have pressing domestic or private or employment reasons which require them to carry out the transaction urgently. They are at the mercy of the market.
In trying to tackle the question of land the community was having some say in what was going on through the Land Commission. At least the community was getting some benefit from increasing values, and at least to some extent it was being protected. I should have thought that with the growing pressure of the population on our resources, and with the rising expectations which people have as to the sort of housing standards they are entitled to expect, the abolition of the Commission was an extremely retrograde step. I should have thought that the Government would think more in terms of how the individual purchaser could be protected rather than dismantling the Commission. Quite frankly, if this was a court of law and we had been weighing up the evidence presented by the other side, I should have said, on what they have told us, that the case had not been made out.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Trew: I shall follow the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) on the question of house prices. Before doing so, I must declare an interest. For the past 13 years I have worked in the construction industry, in which I still hold directorships, and for the past six years I have been concerned with housing development.
The speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, South, and, indeed, the speeches of his right hon. and hon. Friends, illustrated that in their aims there is nothing separating the two sides of the House. We all want to see more stable or lower, house prices for purchasers, and we agree that part of the profits arising from development values should accrue to the community. What separates us is the method and the emphasis.
The Labour Party places the emphasis on the taxing of development profits. This was emphasised in its most extreme form by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), who I know feels deeply on these matters. We place the emphasis on the release of housing

land for development. To a certain extent the two aims are incompatible, because the more ingenious the schemes which may be devised for taxing development or betterment profits, call it what we will, the more we slow down development.
The hon. Member for Salford, East illustrated this point when he spoke about the large profits on land dealings between 1959 and 1964. Indeed, they were large. But surely the answer is to look not only at that but at the rate of house building from 1959 to 1964 and to compare that with the rate of house building from 1966 to 1970, which was the life-span of the Land Commission.
I believe that the Land Commission contributed to an increase in house prices for two reasons. First, the anticipated development levy was added to the price of houses, but only to a limited extent. This is the lesser of the two reasons. The second reason is that the prices of houses, like the prices of anything else, depend on supply and demand. The more slowly housing land comes on the market, the more slowly houses are developed, the higher the price will be. Undoubtedly, the Land Commission slowed down the rate of development.
My hon. Friends the Members for Preston, North (Miss Holt), Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) referred to the complexity of the Act. Indeed, it created new branches in the professions of law and surveying. It was undoubtedly the most complex piece of legislation ever to come before this House. In virtually every land transaction which has taken place during the past four years the consideration how exactly the levy would affect the transaction took administrative effort, correspondence, and negotiation, which undoubtedly slowed down the rate at which housing land came forward for development.
I welcome the abolition of the Land Commission. I disagree with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they say that there is a need for a national agency to buy land. I believe that this is best done by the local authorities, which, assisted by the district valuers, are the best judges of development values in their areas, and, on the private enterprise side, by the developers.
Private developers make mistakes. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) referred to unsold flats on the south coast. Indeed, this was an error of judgment. But the right hon. Gentleman will agree that after the early 1960s not many more flats were built on the south coast. That is because one virtue of private enterprise is that it learns from its mistakes because they are very expensive mistakes. To this extent I still maintain that land-buying decisions are best made by the people on the spot.
I welcome Circular 10/70 because, as I have said before, the only way in which we shall stabilise house prices is by speeding up the release of land for development. A great deal can be done simply by streamlining the planning machinery. I am taken with the Australian method of very much more detailed zoning than we have, whereby the uses to which land can be put are specified in some detail and, provided the planning application complies with that zoning, it is automatically granted, and all that is then required is compliance with the byelaws.
Once we have dealt with the planning procedures—and I hope that we shall—we should speed up the release of more land, but I think that there is a great deal of glib talk about releasing more land. What land? Where is it to come from? One of the necessary attributes of land for residential development is that it should be near a place of employment. People are not prepared to live in the wilds, miles from where they work, and there is a limited amount of land close to places of employment.
If a circle with a 50 mile-radius were drawn round London and round Birmingham, and circles with smaller radii were drawn round other centres of employment, we would end with a fixed amount of land, which could not be increased. Although I welcome all measures to release more land, I think that when we come to weigh up the amount of land that is available for development close to existing areas of employment we find that we are still short of a lot of building land, and for this reason I think that we shall have to look at two other important sources of residential building land, the new towns, and the twilight areas.
I see no reason why land in the new towns should not be available to smaller builders. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) made the point, which I accept wholeheartedly, of the valuable contribution which these small builders make to housing, but I see no rôle for the Land Commission in the allocation of building land in the new towns.
One saving grace which I always thought the Land Commission had was that it might have been of some use in the twilight areas. I believe that we have in these areas a great opportunity, which we may never have again, completely to change the face of some of our major cities. There is undoubtedly scope for joint development between private enterprise and local authorities, and I concede that the Land Commission might have made a contribution towards promoting that, but that in itself is not sufficient reason for the existence of the Land Commission. I believe that the powers of compulsory purchase that might be necessary are there already, and that one does not need a Land Commission to promote co-operation between private enterprise and local authorities.
If it is accepted as a principle that there might be a case for some Exchequer aid to such development, one does not need a Land Commission to produce it. I therefore maintain that there is no justification for the continuing existence of the Land Commission, and I support the Bill to dispose of it.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: We have had an interesting debate, and my first pleasant duty, although he is not here, is to express words of commendation from this bench to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) for his speech. It was a speech of great clarity and, if he will not mind my saying so, a speech of great fairness because, as many others have done, he was trying to grapple with the tremendously important problem presented to us in the whole matter of land speculation and land supply. We look forward to hearing further contributions from him if they are of the same high order.
The Land Commission had to go. As the hon. Gentleman properly told us, it had to go because it was part of the


covenant, the Tory manifesto, and the fact that it was put in with all the prejudice which went with drawing up that manifesto had nothing to do with the merits of the case, as I shall try to demonstrate shortly.
The Land Commission is not going because it is unnecessary or irrelevant to the country's needs in terms of land policy, but it is being abolished to serve the primitive instincts of the Conservative Party and the great emotional fervour which they were able to produce about this subject in the last two or three years. The abolition of the Commission was announced with almost indecent haste, one would have thought, within days of this Parliament assembling—I am glad that I carry hon. Gentlemen opposite with me—before even hon. Gentlemen opposite had looked at the problem and thought of the consequences of abolishing it.
We appreciate that the Government can claim that they have a mandate. The interesting thing today is that we have heard little of the heart-rending cases upon which the campaign against the Commission was mounted two or three years ago. Most of the early anomalies in respect of the Commission were ironed out, first, by the Finance Act, 1969, and then by a series of fresh regulations which I introduced and which were passed by the House early this year.
The question people are asking, the intelligent question, is "When we have got rid of the Commission, what are we to put in its place?" That is the one relevant question facing the House. In fairness to several hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is the question to which they have tried to address themselves, including the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew). But they got nowhere near providing a satisfactory answer.
How are we to deal with the abuses of land speculation when the Commission has gone? How are we to be certain that we will get building land on to the market so that we can provide houses for the people who need them?
The Commission naturally had a difficult start, mainly caused by the political campaigning of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. After three years there is now a widespread awareness, even in the most unlikely quarters, that

the Commission was succeeding in the task that it was set. Many times today we have had harsh judgments about the Commission from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who expected it in three years to solve every problem in respect of land that has bedevilled this country for the last 300 years. We have returned time and again over the years, as have our predecessors, to the problem of land speculation at the expense of the community and to shortages of land. Hon. Gentlemen have judged the Commission on what it was able to do in three years. But what can we expect any piece of machinery to achieve in one three-year period?
Just think what had to happen. First, the Commission had to be created, and it had to recruit staff. It had to develop a philosophy. It had to survey land throughout the country, and decide where land was needed. It had to hold endless discussions with local authorities in the conurbations and outside them. Proposals had to be produced, and the Commission had to run the gauntlet of public inquiries. It had to wait months—that point is against us as well as hon. Gentleman opposite—for Ministerial decisions on those public inquiries.
In the light of all that, the time scale of three years is almost insignificant, and it is a nonsense to judge the Commission in a three-year life, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have done. Those are the questions which are now being asked not by doctrinaire Socialists but by hard-headed business men and people in the building industry.
I now turn to the three great issues which the Bill leaves with us. The first is that of betterment. The principle of taxing betterment is now unassailable. Even the Conservative Party accepts it. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said:
We agree with the laudable object of bringing land forward.
He supports that object. This is the first time that any official speaker on behalf of his party has conceded a single point in favour of the Commission. Today, for the first time, we have it on record that the principle behind one of the tasks of the Land Commission is acceptable to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They accept the principle of betterment, too.

Mr. Graham Page: We have always said that the objective which the Land Commission set out to achieve was one that we wished to achieve. We want to bring land forward. We said that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite chose the wrong way to do it.

Mr. Howell: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, in preparation for this debate I have gone back over all our debates on land policy in the last few years. The hon. Gentleman never said it from this Box when he was in opposition. None of his right hon. and hon. Friends said it. They never said a word about it in their Manifesto. They merely said, "We will abolish the Land Commission". If they believed it, certainly they were misleading the country in their election campaign, because they never stated that the problems that the Commission was set up to deal with would be left to be dealt with when the Commission was abolished.
The same applies to capital gains tax. The Conservative Party now accepts the principle that vast profits from land speculation cannot go untaxed. It accepts in this Bill that the betterment levy of 40 per cent. will be replaced by capital gains tax. Of course, that must be right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) told us with great force the moral principle on which this is based. When land values escalate because of the activity of the community in granting planning permission or creating wealth from building in any part of the country, it cannot be right that the people who happen to own land should get away with tremendous bonanzas in terms of capital gains completely untaxed. No one would seek to defend that principle.
Occasionally, it is worth going back to first principles when we talk about this subject. Land is the one commodity which cannot be manufactured or created. It can be tended and cared for. Most certainly it can be cornered, and a lot of people have been cornering land in recent years. When land is cornered, it is right that the community should have something to say about receiving a fair share of the profit that is made.
The Labour Government fixed the betterment levy at about 40 per cent. If we are to replace it with capital gains tax, there is no argument of principle

about the share of the return which should go to the community. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that the capital gains tax, which stands at about 30 per cent. for surtax payers, is a fair share. In other words, there will be a handout of some 10 per cent. to the land speculators. That will be the immediate result of this Bill.
This is quite clear from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. In the 15 years that I have been in this House, I know of no other case where an Explanatory and Financial Memorandum has so blatantly explained to the House and the country the financial handout that the Government intend to give to their supporters. On their own showing, it is to be £43 million in the next two years.
What on earth do the Government feel will be the effect of this sort of thing on the economy and on the trade unions? It was in the very same week that this Bill was produced, declaring officially its handout of £43 million in the next two weeks to land speculators, that Sir Jack Scamp had the audacity to announce a settlement for dustmen and road sweepers of 15 per cent., and he was decried in the most violent and hysterical terms by the Prime Minister. There followed a campaign of abuse against him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers such as we have not seen in this country for a long time.
What can one make of this humbug and hypocrisy, where the Government lecture the unions day after day upon the terrible dangers of creating inflation, on the need for strength, on the need for a sense of responsibility, and in the very same week produce a Bill like this with this Explanatory Memorandum? It is unforgivable and indefensible. If we add to that the attacks on the social services which have accompanied this sort of legislation, we get some idea of the magnitude of the nonsensical situation which the Conservative Government have created.
It is a serious question to ask them—how on earth, in the light of these handouts, they can expect anyone in the trade union movement to take their demands seriously. How can they think that they are supporting responsible leadership in the trade union movement,


when they are, by this Bill, completely undermining it?
I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) is here because he put this much more clearly than I could. He did not talk about bonanzas and hand-outs to Conservative land voters at the last election. He said, "Let us give the Land Commission a decent burial, and hurry off to the wake." That of course is precisely what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are hoping to do, in the interests of their friends.
The price of land is another great issue. It came up three times in July, when the Secretary of State made his statement. I regret that he has not found it possible to be in this Chamber for one minute of the debate, having regard to his great responsibilities.
On 22nd July, he said at column 550 that the Land Commission had put up the cost of houses and later said:
I believe that the Land Commission has had a detrimental effect on the price of land. That is one of the reasons why we are abolishing it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 553.]
The hon. Member for Crosby told us today, "In our election manifesto, we said that betterment had increased the price of land".
This sentiment was echoed by several of his hon. Friends and, in case there is any doubt about it, the circular which the Government sent out only two days ago on the whole of this question refers specifically to the fact that the Land Commission has added to the price of land and, thereby, of houses. This charge has been repeated time and again and there can be no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite believe it.
That takes us to a very interesting question. It must follow, ipso facto, that, if the Land Commission has increased the price of land and houses, then, by all laws of logic, when it is abolished, the price of land and houses will come down again. Perhaps we can hear why that law of logic does not apply. We shall see. We shall watch this closely and will return to it again and again. If hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that the Land Commission increased the price of land and houses, we are entitled to expect those prices to come down with the

abolition of the Commission. That is the yardstick by which we will judge this policy of the Government, though we know that it is a nonsensical argument on their part and that nothing of the sort will happen.
The price of land has more to do with scarcity value and the absence of land with planning permission. That is an important determining factor. If one intends to follow a rigid green belt policy—which the Minister and the circular to which I referred tell us will happen—commendable though that is, it causes additional pressures to be placed on land prices. There is nothing in the absence of the Land Commission which will tackle the problem of bringing forward land with planning permission.
Another factor that puts up land prices—some of my hon. Friends think that it is more important than scarcity value—is the law of supply and demand. If houses are in short supply, because land is in short supply, house prices rocket, and we have experienced this on many occasions. We have seen estate agents selling large estates with the first 100 or so houses at a fixed price, so that if they go quickly the prices of the rest are increased immediately. Every time hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the Land Commission has been responsible for increases in house and land prices, they are denying their philosophy of the law of supply and demand.
We come to the question of land planning and supply, a factor of considerable importance. It has been increasingly understood because of the positive rôle which the Land Commission played, there will be no authority on which the Minister can rely to do this job. He cannot do it himself because he must decide on planning appeals. He cannot be both the executive trying to bring forward land and the final arbiter deciding important principles of planning policy.
I was surprised at the wording of the circular because it seemed that the Secretary of State was sailing near the wind when he said that he would consider on their merits planning applications which came before him on appeal for the exercise of his discretion and that he would be
prepared to give way to need where it exists for the urgent release of more land for housing.


I should have thought that many barristers appearing before planning inquiries might be entitled to argue from that wording that the dice were cast against their clients before the matter reached the Minister. For this reason I suggest that it was unwise for the right hon. Gentleman to have adopted that wording.
One of the great virtues of the Land Commission was the fact that it was outside the immediate Government machine. The Minister could act in his quasi-judicial capacity, because applications for compulsory purchase orders were brought by the Land Commission, with which he was not immediately involved. The Commission was independent so that the right hon. Gentleman could exercise his judgment in an independent way.
It is interesting to note that when we were in Government, eight draft C.P.Os were approved covering 1,375 acres and four were not approved by the then Minister, showing that the standard of impartial judgment in these matters was being maintained. Who will take on the rôle if the Minister cannot take it? As things are the Minister cannot take it. If we had had regional councils it could have been argued that a regional council should look at all of the land in its area, judge the planning, and so on, and then produce proposals which the Minister could independently judge. But we do not have regional councils.
The Minister for Local Government stated this afternoon that the Government put all their faith in local authorities to get people to do what the Commission had been doing in preparing the land and bringing it forward. In this connection, paragraph 4 of the circular is very interesting because it speaks of
… local authorities surveying the whole of the housing needs in their area …".
Time and again today hon. and right hon. Members opposite have spoken of local authorities solving the problem in their own areas.
The trouble is that the land that has to be found is not situated where the great housing need lies. Birmingham is not in trouble in Birmingham: it must have land in Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Shropshire. London is not in trouble because it does not have land in the middle of London: it is in the outer metropolitan areas that land has

to be unfrozen. Indeed, the hysterical terms of the Circular very much suggest that even the Secretary of State has the gravest doubts whether it will have any use at all in producing land.
It was, I think, the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) who put it even more eloquently than I can when he said that it is no use the Secretary of State asking planning officers and planning committees to produce land because they will not take the slightest notice of him. That has been our experience. My former colleague, Kenneth Robinson, when Minister, said that we had to have enough land in the outer metropolitan area to build 35,000 houses a year for seven years, and he got very little sympathy from local authorities.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has spoken most eloquently of the little village of Tring in his constituency where the Greater London Council proposes to acquire enough land to house 2,000 people. He has told us that the proposal is to be resisted because the people from London would descend on the village. It is a shocking thing for him to say. I know that it would make some difference to his majority if the proposal went through, but I do not take issue with him on that. I merely point out that all of us who feel passionately about the homeless, about the need for a man to house his family in decent and civilised conditions, can only give practical expression to our concern and compassion if we can provide land in Tring and places like it. That is the reality of the policy we must pursue, and this Bill kills one of the means of achieving that end.
We have heard very little today about the Commission's successes, but a large number of builders, especially those in the small and medium brackets, are extremely worried about where they will get the land on which to provide houses, especially for young married couples. Only the other day a builder, who voted Conservative at the last election, said to me: "By the time the Labour Government were ejected some very good work was being done in acquiring large areas of much-needed land for young married people, against the wishes of county and local planning authorities." This is a typical view by a builder who supports the Tory Party.
Increasingly the Land Commission was being invited to deal with cases of multi-ownership of difficult sites which could not be solved in any other way than by bringing in a body like the Commission as an outside agency.
A typical example is a site of 200 acres in 10 different ownerships. The initial cost of providing access and sewage on such a site would be about £½ million. No small or medium-sized builder could finance such an operation, and very few large builders could face it either. Who is to finance such an operation now that the Land Commission is being disbanded?
Let us look at some of the cases with which the Land Commission was dealing, although it is true that it had not acquired all the land. It was not always operating in the teeth of hostile local authorities. The Land Commission was called in by the Kent County Council to deal with a most complicated case.
The Commission was called in by Surrey County Council at Woking to deal with a case of 528 acres desperately needed to house overspill from London—the homeless and people living in London slums. Only the Commission could tackle that one. Even the local authorities on which the Secretary of State is to place all his reliance could not tackle the comprehensive development which was needed.
In Wokingham the Land Commission faced a hostile local authority, one which would do very little to help London deal with its terrible problems. There were 356 acres of land there which, in the face of the anti-social attitude of the local authority at Wokingham, could be dealt with only by an outside body producing a C.P.O. and seeking to get the Minister to approve it. The only body which could do it was the Land Commission.
On Teesside the Land Commission was dealing with 900 acres by means of producing plans for comprehensive development.
At Bridgend, at the invitation of the local authority, 500 acres were in the pipeline.
The Land Commission was dealing with 500 acres at Warwick. This project never got beyond the very early stages. It was the only possible site at Warwick which could provide houses for this

much-needed pressure area of the West Midlands. The land had to be surveyed and acquired. Sewage and roads had to be laid on. A master plan had to be prepared. The cost of the operation would have been phenomenal and quite beyond the powers even of the Warwick local authority, which is why it would have welcomed the Land Commission's activities.
I could quote case after case. A small case at Walsall also illustrated the Commission's virtue.
When Aston University wanted to buy 94 acres of land the only body which could come to its aid and provide the land to enable the university to get off the ground was the Land Commission, for universities have no powers of compulsory purchase.
Hornchurch airfield is yet another example of the Commission's virtue. It took over public land to the extent of 194 acres which must be used in the first place for the extraction of gravel, but, because the Commission owned it, it could let off the lease for the extraction of gravel and then ensure that the land was properly used afterwards for the development of the public good and the greatly enhanced development values were safeguarded for the benefit of the public as a whole.
The longer I spent on the preparation of this speech the more I became impressed with the overwhelming case for the Land Commission or a similar authority. No hon. Member opposite has told us how any of these problems are to be tackled once the Commission ceases to exist. The processes of finding land, packaging land, negotiation and C.P.Os must continue. It is remarkable how in such a short time the Commission was succeeding in its purpose.
This is a Bill to abolish the Land Commission. It is certainly not a Bill to abolish the problems with which the Land Commission was set up to deal. Those problems will remain, whatever attitudes we take on either side of the House. They will remain, only more so. We on this side of the House predict that land speculation will again cause great public concern as a result of the activities of the present Government. Much needed land around our great conurbations will not be forthcoming in any meaningful quantities.
For these reasons we oppose the Bill—a Bill which, in my view, is nothing more nor less than a piece of ritual slaughter to which hon. Gentlemen opposite were committed. During the lifetime of this Parliament we shall unceasingly, at every opportunity, bring before this House for detailed examination the consequences of this thoroughly bad piece of legislation.

9.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): May I first of all join with all those right hon. and hon. Members who have paid tribute to the staff in Newcastle for the work that they have done in administering the proposals of the Land Commission. They have carried out what has been a difficult job, in contact with the public, often in highly controversial circumstances, and I know that the whole House will be grateful to them for the way in which, with humanity and compassion, they have carried out their job.
I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) that we are appraised of the problem particularly of his area and of the employment situation which arises from this Bill, and I assure him that we shall be looking at the matter with very great care.
I should also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle). I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear his speech, but I have heard of my hon. Friend's well-balanced and thoughtful contribution, and I hope that I shall personally have an opportunity to listen to him in the not very distant future.
As the House knows, it is a very recent transfer that has brought me into the area of this very complicated subject which we have been discussing today, and so, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), I have had to look from the start at this particular problem and it has been a most interesting and complicated exercise.
It is difficult to know quite the background against which one should set out to judge a Bill of this sort. One could take the totally extreme position of going back to its early conception, with the present Leader of the Opposition, who said in Chiswick on 17th March, 1966:

We would take the urban building land on which planning permission has been granted into public ownership. That is what the Land Commission will do.
That is the extreme doctrinaire approach to this whole problem and one which hon. Members opposite will not wish to deny. Indeed, many wish it had gone even further. That is the background, against which we could judge the Bill.
I think it would serve the purpose of the House and meet the tone of the discussion that we have had today if we were to deal with it more from the approach set out in the previous Government's White Paper that really told us what the purposes of the Land Commission were to be. It was, broadly speaking, set out in paragraph 7:
(1) to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans;
(2) to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community and that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced.
That is the fairest background against which this exercise should be judged. Those are the objectives, and it is simply against that that I want to make my contribution this evening.
I believe there is in this analysis of the problem a real meeting of the minds on both sides of the House. I have heard many of the speeches today. When we come down to discussing the need for larger planning units, for balancing the population movements and finding homes for people in developing areas, we all accept that the institutions which have grown up in another century are not institutions which were designed for the complicated and large-scale problems in modern communities. I do not believe, therefore, that the problem is: should we do something about it? The issue is much more: how do we deal with, and improve our capability of solving, the existing problems?
We on this side believe that it is fundamentally to misunderstand the way in which the problem can be solved if one tries to set up a conflict between local and national government. Our firm conviction is that this problem, which concerns us all, and concerns the local authorities in many ways more than us, can be dealt with only in partnership and in co-ordination with the local authorities.


This is where the first great division comes between the two sides of the House.
We believe that there is a real need to understand and sympathise with the democratic power in the Provinces, and it is an ill day when a Government deliberately set out to override the wishes of the democratically-elected local authorities by the creation of instruments of policy designed to carry out national policies but often in conflict with the local authorities.

Mr. Frank Allaun: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: May I continue? I shall refer to the hon. Gentleman's speech a little later, and I could, perhaps, give way to him then.
We have announced in a series of policy statements the way in which we consider it is correct for a Government to go about fulfilling the sort of policy which I have outlined. Our first action was to bring together the three principal Departments affected—Housing and Local Government, Public Building and Works, and Transport—into one unified Department of the Environment so that at least those people seeing the problem on a national scale could work in harmony within one central organised unit. That was a major step forward.
We announced our intention to push ahead with encouraging the acceptance of regional strategy plans. We believe that this also must be done in partnership with the people who live in the areas involved and will have to carry out the regional strategy plans. This is going ahead in one area of the country after another.
Our next step forward was the publication of Circular 10/70, which, as the House knows, was sent out quite recently. The essence of this Circular is to say to the local authorities that they have the backing and encouragement of the Government in implementing the proposals and plans which are necessary to solve the sort of problems which we have been discussing.
The biggest single dilemma facing us all stems from the need to release more land. The Secretary of State, in administering national policies, is aware that local authorities must review the amount of land which they have available and

see wherever they can make a contribution by making more land available for building. This can probably make the greatest single contribution to solve the problem of land prices.
We believe that the balancing of land availability with housing requirements should be the subject of continued monitoring, and we wish to encourage experimental schemes, such as that in the South-East, to spread throughout the country so that local authorities will constantly keep in mind the need to maintain the right balance. We have asked local authorities, where they are holding stocks of land above their urgent requirements, to consider whether land could be released for private development so that this facet of the policy may proceed. We consider that it is necessary also for continual consultation to take place with the building industry, and we have asked the local authorities to see that this is at the essence of their land policy.
Those are the ideas in Circular 10/70, but, of course, it is not the end of the problem. It is not the ultimate solution. It is an indication of the ways in which we believe that progress can be encouraged, and it is backed up by widespread Ministerial visits throughout the country to explain the part which both local and central Government can play.
I come now to an aspect of the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred; namely, the need to bring about a reorganisation of local government itself.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: Hear, hear.

Mr. Heseltine: I note that the former Secretary of State gives encouragement to that now. He did not give the same encouragement when he had an opportunity to do something about it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that a White Paper on the subject will be published next year. We are as aware as all hon. Members are of the need to see that there are units of local government which can carry out the work on a scale sufficient to deal with the problems which confront us.

Mr. Freeson: What the hon. Gentleman has just said links with the point which I wish to put to him. We had a


large-scale reorganisation of local government in the London area several years ago. We have the larger unit, and units below it. Yet Greater London is suffering as much today from a shortage of land being made available in the outer boroughs to solve Inner London's problems as was the case five, six or seven years ago. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what he has in mind to do if local authorities do not take up the requests which have been sent out in the circular?

Mr. Heseltine: This is the essence of the difference between us. Local authorities are every bit as responsible as hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. The sort of results which we all want will never be achieved if it is believed that policies can be rammed down the throats of local authorities. This is absolutely crucial. In London the single most important step forward is the study of the South-East regional strategy, which is well under way, in order to get a feeling of partnership and harmony among the local authorities involved. If that harmony is not established, I assure the Opposition that there will be resentment and destructiveness among local authorities, and that will make it far harder to carry out the policy.
It is the essence of our policy to base it on harmony between the centre and local authorities. In the course of the last six years, in subject after subject Labour Members have gone out of their way to break this sense of trust between these two essential forms of government first, in the establishment of passenger transport authorities, by which they deliberately took power from the democratically-elected local authorities, secondly, by the deliberate intervention with local discretion about education, by saying that local authorities could not do what they were democratically elected to do; and, thirdly, by the establishment of the Land Commission, which was designed to give power to the centre at the expense of the periphery.
That is why when we came into office we found that relations between the Commission and the local authorities were deteriorating—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?] I will spell it out. If hon. Members were to ask local authorities like Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire what

sort of relationship they had with a national body when it came into conflict with the policies which they wanted to pursue, they would find themselves answering for the consequences of the decrease in trust between the centre and the local authorities.
I now move to the second test against which we should judge this policy. The White Paper referred to the availability at the right time of the right land. What has happened over the three years during which the Commission has been in existence? In the total of three years the Commission has bought 2,800 acres against a total requirement for house-building of 90,000 acres. That puts the problem into its setting. Of the 2,800, only 338 have been sold for building.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Commission started from scratch and had to build up a machine to go through all the planning procedures. In order fairly to judge the figures which the hon. Gentleman is now giving, may we be told how many acres were in the pipeline for requisition?

Mr. Heseltine: What the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate is that the pipeline is a meaningless concept in this case. For example, would he ask me to include a 1,000-acre site about which someone from the Commission telephoned to see whether the Commission could buy it, a request which was refused? There are many possible sites which could or could not have been acquired and for which there might or might not have been planning permission and it is, therefore, impossible to say what might have happened in future. What is certain is that in three years 338 acres of land became available and that is a derisory contribution to a solution of the national housing problem.
It might be of interest to the Opposition at least to know that, in contributing that 338 acres, there was a trading profit of £271,000. One particular site alone made a profit of £17,000 and I am sure that this is welcome to the Opposition. They might pause, however, to wonder whether it was necessary for that site on which £17,000 profit was made to have been transferred from the Ministry of Defence to the Land Commission in order to make a profit which the Ministry of Defence could well have made itself. It might be helpful if we bear in mind that


of the 2,800 acres acquired by the Land Commission, 80 per cent. was acquired by voluntary agreement, and there is at least a prima facie case for saying that this land would have found its way on the home development market of its own accord.
I move now from the global national availability of 338 acres and look at the situation where the pressure on house building is at its most severe. Let us understand what the Land Commission did, first, in London, the South-East and Southern England—an area of the greatest possible difficulties. In the whole of these three areas, the Land Commission acquired 286·12 acres, of which 188 were surplus Government requirements—previously an airfield. The Land Commission turned it into a gravel pit. The contribution in this area of maximum congestion was 100 acres.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, asked what was happening in the West Midlands. I can help him. In this second area of maximum concentration, the total acquisition was 194·29 acres, and the land released was four acres—and all of that was released from a Government Department. If I am to dismiss the argument of the right amount at the right time, I do not need to call on more effective figures than these.
The next point of great moment to the Opposition was to get back the proceeds of the profits at 40 per cent., from those whom they graphically described as having gained the benefit of the community. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), in his letter to the Guardian yesterday, and numerous of his colleagues were describing the speculators, the rich and the bloodsuckers who, they said, were latching on to the community and depriving people of homes and forcing up land prices, and all that. In their White Paper, the last Government promised that the Land Commission would keep down the price of land. I want to look at both of these propositions.
First, I deal with the question of bloodsuckers. There have been 47,310 cases producing £74 million, of which the Land Commission collected £47 million. More than 47,000 people were assessed for betterment levy. These are people we must look at in detail to see whether

they match the image of some bloated plutocrat which so conveniently suits the arguments of hon. Members opposite and is so inconveniently denied by the facts which emerge as soon as one studies the record of the Land Commission.
According to the Report of the Land Commission to the end of March, 1970, 37·6 per cent. of all betterment cases were for people who were assessed at under £1,500, while 68·8 per cent. of all cases were for people whose land was assessed at under £5,000. The speculators on assessments of over £50,000 amounted to no more than 2·5 per cent. of the total number of assessments. A total of £4½ million was taken from 12,000 small land owners. I simply cannot understand how it is that hon. Members opposite are prepared to make the sort of hysterical contributions they have made to the debate in total contradiction of the evidence of the Land Commission's Report.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that in 1969 the "little boys", the owner-occupiers, were excluded from levies of this kind. Moreover, he knows very well that the £43 million net which his Government will hand back to the land owners will not go back to those "little boys", but back to the men who are dealing in millions.

Mr. Heseltine: It is this refusal to look at the figures which makes it so difficult to argue the case. All the figures I quoted were in respect of cases after the Amendments which were made in 1969. Had I quoted from the report of the previous year, it would have been seen that the figures are even more damaging to the hon. Gentleman's argument. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to say where he gets the information to make the sort of assertion he makes in today's Guardian
This is the levy that large landowners and land speculators would otherwise have had to pay on fortunes made overnight when their land soared in value following the granting of permission to build on it: potato fields into goldmines.

Mr. Allaun: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the information came from Sir Frank Markham, a former Conservative Member of Parliament—and a very honest one—who told us that he bought 10 acres of land at £30,000 and two years later sold the land for £1 million.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to have established one thing at least, and that is that the hon. Gentleman based his assertions in that letter on the hearsay of one former Member of Parliament as opposed to the evidence of 47,000 people.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The figures given by the hon. Gentleman so far suggest that a considerable number of people with moderate means are involved, but they also suggest that a limited number of wealthy people will be affected. As for the figure of 2·5 per cent. that he mentioned, how much in total went into the pockets of the wealthy?

Mr. Heseltine: I accept that the 2·5 per cent. took a substantial amount of the total. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] But some of those people would be represented by corporate organisations who will now pay at 42½ per cent. and the rest will pay capital gains tax. Therefore, the amount of flowback is smaller than hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to make out.
If I may now answer the question which hon. Members opposite have asked in the course of the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Try answering this one."]—they asked whether the situation is now acceptable and suggested that it does not matter whether we make the sort of adjustments necessary to follow from the Bill because the hardship has been eliminated. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are to be believed, the people who are now suffering have all been exempted by the 1969 adjustments. I have taken the trouble to go into some of the cases involving a large number of the sort of people who since 1969 have been suffering under the existing levels and conditions of betterment.
There is first somebody who has been assessed at £6,000—not a great deal of money having regard to the current levels of house valuation—who is in her 77th year, a widow in poor health with a mentally retarded son. She bought another property backing on to hers so as to protect her son from the prying eyes of neighbours. Her only income is pension and supplementary benefit. Another case involves a consideration of £1,800, half an acre of land attracting levy of £456. The person who paid the levy is a 55-year-old widow with two children, whose only income is £6 15s. per week widow's pension. In the final example, the con-

sideration involved was £1,925 and the payers of levy were a husband and wife. The man skipped home and the wife is now trying to pay the sums outstanding. The wife's income consists of what she gets from letting rooms. She is being asked to pay £2 a week.
Hon. Members opposite in launching attacks against the Government today cannot ignore the thousands of cases of difficulty and hardship produced by this legislation.

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the main question about where the burden of the betterment levy was really felt. He gave figures in terms of the number of cases involved. Will he tell us what proportion of the total betterment levy was paid by the 40 per cent. of small payers and what proportion by the 2·5 per cent. of large payers?

Mr. Heseltine: What I fail to understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] What I fail to understand—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Suddenly, too much enthusiasm has come into the debate.

Mr. Heseltine: What I fail to understand is how hon. Members opposite can launch that sort of case against us without knowing the answer to a question like that.
This attack from the Opposition—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been a placid debate. There is no need for hon. Members to shout.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: He will not answer the question!

Mr. Heseltine: Hon. Members opposite have launched this attack with absolutely no regard for the evidence contained in the Land Commission's Reports, which are freely available to all hon. Members opposite. It is apparent that none has taken the trouble to find out what is in them. Therefore, it is quite understandable that a newspaper which nobody will pretend is specially favourable to my party—The Guardian—yesterday reported that
In its short and unfruitful life the Commission has not won many partisans. In


practice, neither result came near to fulfilment in the Commission's three years of life.
It goes on in the same tone. [Interruption.] I am glad that hon. Members have read some of the evidence in this case.
The only other point that I want to make concerns the suggestion that many hon. Members opposite have put forward to the effect that the Land Commission and the betterment levy have not pushed up the price of land. They asserted that time and again in the debate. How can they explain away the fact that in the three years preceding the introduction of the levy land prices rose by 30 per cent., whereas in the three years following its introduction land prices rose by 50 per cent., and that since the announcement that the Land Commission is to come to an end and that betterment levy is no longer to be charged, land prices have stabilised for the first time in four years?
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the Commission when first

established was conceived as a weapon to empower Central Government to interfere in local matters. There is not the slightest doubt that it has created great personal hardship, that at one time was drawing no fewer than 70 letters a week in protest to Members of Parliament. It has undoubtedly forced up land prices at an escalating rate, which we deeply deplore, and it has gone a long way to exacerbate the deteriorating relations between Central Government and local government, without which the problems that we are concerned with will never be solved.

Mr. Francis Pym (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 263.

Division No. 49.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Channon, Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chapman, Sydney
Fookes, Miss Janet


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fortescue, Tim


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chichester-Clark, R.
Foster, Sir John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Churchill, W. S.
Fowler, Norman


Astor, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Humphrey
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fry, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cockeram, Eric
Gardner, Edward


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cooke, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David


Balniel, Lord
Coombs, Derek
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cooper, A. E.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Batsford, Brian
Cordle, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Corfield, F. V.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bell, Ronald
Cormack, Patrick
Goodhart, Philip


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Critchley, Julian
Gorst, John


Benyon, W.
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Crowder, F. P.
Gray, Hamish


Biffen, John
Curran, Charles
Green, Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grieve, Percy


Blaker, Peter
Dance, James
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grylls, Michael


Body, Richard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Gummer, Selwyn


Boscawen, R. T.
Dean, Paul
Gurden, Harold


Bossom, Sir Clive
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Bowden, Andrew
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dixon, Piers
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Braine, Bernard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bray, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dykes, Hugh
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John
Hastings, Stephen


Bryan, Paul
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Havers, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hawkins, Paul


Buck, Antony
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hay, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Emery, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Burden, F. A.
Fell, Anthony
Heseltine, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hicks, Robert


Campbell,Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fidler, Michael
Higgins, Terence L.


Carlisle, Mark
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hiley, Joseph


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)




Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Scott, Nicholas


Holland, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sharples, Richard


Holt, Miss Mary
Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hooson, Emlyn
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hordern, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Simeons, Charles


Hornby, Richard
Moate, Roger
Sinclair, Sir George


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Molyneaux, James
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Money, Ernie
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Soref, Harold


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith


Hunt, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Spence, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sproat, Iain


Iremonger, T. L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stainton, Keith


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stanbrook, Ivor


James, David
Mudd, David
Steel, David


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Murton, Oscar
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Jessel, Toby
Neave, Airey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinetead)
Nicholls. Sir Harmar
Stokes, John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Noble, Rt Hn Nichael
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Normanton, Tom
Sutcliffe, John


Jopling, Michael
Nott, John
Tapsell, Peter


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Orr, Capt. L.P.S.
Tebbit, Norman


Kershaw, Anthony
Osborn, John
Temple, John M.


Kilfedder, James

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kimball, Marcus
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Kinsey, J. R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kirk, Peter
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Tilney, John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Knox, David
Peel, John
Trew, Peter


Lambton, Antony
Percival, Ian
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lane, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pink, R, Bonner
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pounder, Rafton
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Le Marchant, Spencer
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Longden, Gilbert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wall, Patrick


Loveridge, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walters, Dennis


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Raison, Timothy
Ward, Dame Irene


MacArthur, Ian
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Warren, Kenneth


McCrindle, R. A.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


McLaren, Martin
Redmond, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


McMaster, Stanley
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


McNair-wilson, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wilkinson, John


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Madel, David
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Maginnis, John E.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)
Woodnutt, Mark


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Worsley, Marcus


Mather, Carol
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Maude, Angus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Younger, Hn. George


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rost, Peter



Mawby, Ray
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Concannon, J. D.


Albu, Austen
Bradley, Tom
Conlan, Bernard


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Allen, Scholefield
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Cronin, John


Ashley, Jack
Buchan, Norman
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Ashton, Joe
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Barnes, Michael
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Barnett, Joel
Cant, R. B.
Dalyell, Tam


Beaney, Alan
Carmichael, Neil
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm Northfield)
Davidson, Arthur


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Bidwell, Sydney
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cohen, Stanley
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)


Booth, Albert
Coleman, Donald
Deakins, Eric







de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Delargy, H. J.
Kelley, Richard
Prescott, John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kerr, Russell
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Rankin, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lawson, George
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A.
Leonard, Dick
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fernyhough, E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, John
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James


Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James
Silverman, Julius


Foot, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Small, William


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John
Spearing, Nigel


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Gilbert, Dr. John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strang, Gavin


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Taverne, Dick


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce
Torney, Tom


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tuck, Raphael


Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Urwin, T. W.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Varley, Eric G.


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wainwright, Edwin


Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland
Wallace, George


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Watkins, David


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Murray, Ronald King
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Oram, Bert
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Janner, Greville
Orbach, Maurice
Whitehead, Phillip


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Whitlock, William


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


John, Brynmor
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie
Woof, Robert


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pendry, Tom
Mr. John Golding and


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest G.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — LAND COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to abolish betterment levy and dissolve the Land Commission, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—


(i) of compensation to members of the Land Commission for loss of office;
(ii) of sums payable by the Secretary of State in the exercise of functions transferred to him by the Act; and
(iii) of expenses incurred in the exercise of any power conferred by the Act for facilitating the disposal of land acquired under the Land Commission Act 1967;

(b) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES)

10.12 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move,
That the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested to me that we take this Motion and the next one
That the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.
together. Does the House have any objection? If not, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has moved the first one, and we shall discuss both together.

The Attorney-General: I understand from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we can discuss the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order, 1970, at the same time. Both Orders, as the House will appreciate, relate to the remuneration of the judiciary. As it is convenient for the House to discuss these together, I will deal first with the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order. That relates to what is called the lower judiciary of England and Wales; that is, the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to debate against a background of multifarious conversation.

The Attorney-General: —the county court judges and the metropolitan magistrates.
The Judges Remuneration (No. 2) Order relates to the higher judiciary, not merely that of England and Wales, but those of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The lower judiciary consists of 106 county court judges—Parliament has approved a maximum of 125–37 metropolitan magistrates, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and the recorders of Liverpool and Manchester. The higher judiciary of England and Wales includes the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, 10 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a group of hon. Members who wish to sustain a conversation. They might do it outside.

The Attorney-General: —14 Lords Justices of Appeal and 68 Puisne judges—in all, 95 English judges of the higher judiciary. In Scotland, we have the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and 16 ordinary judges of the Court of Session, making 18 judges in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, we have the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, two Lords Justices of Appeal of Northern Ireland and four Puisne Judges in Northern Ireland.
In some sense, both Orders have a connection with and are a necessary corollary of recently announced increases in the salaries of the Civil Service and of the chairmen of nationalised industries. Whereas the lower judiciary has, since the end of the war in 1945, followed conventionally and more or less automatically on the increases in Civil Service pay, the higher judiciary has not. In the latter case, direct comparability with the Civil Service is not suggested, nor is it desired, although there must be some indirect comparability because of the comparability of the lower judicial salaries both with the Civil Service and with the salaries of the higher judiciary.
In March, 1969, the National Board for Prices and Incomes published proposals for increases in the salaries of chairmen and members of nationalised industry boards. Immediately following that, the Plowden Committee, the Statutory Advisory Committee on the Pay of the Higher Civil Service, published proposals for similar increases for Permanent Secretaries and higher civil servants. These represented increases of 60 and 63 per cent. [Interruption.]
It was then proposed in 1969 that these large increases should be made in three stages. The previous Government, hon. Members will recollect, accepted the increases as regards the first stage but reserved their position as regards the remaining two. Permanent Secretaries received the first of their increases in July, 1969, and their second in July, 1970. The third was due on 1st July, 1971. But, by a decision of the present Government announced last August, it was made effect from 1st January, 1971,


instead of July. Under the proposals of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, the chairmen of the nationalised industries followed suit. [Interruption.]
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 8th December, the higher judiciary, following the example set by the Lord Chief Justice, decided in the national interest—[Interruption.]—to forgo an increase in their salaries for six months; that is to say, until 1st July next. They are doing this in common with higher officials in the Civil and Diplomatic Services and the chairmen and deputy chairmen of the major nationalised industries boards. [Interruption.] I should like to pay tribute and acknowledge, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did, the action taken by the judges in this respect.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that they are deferring their increases; but the increases will still be implemented officially from 1st January, 1971. Is this so that they will not lose anything on their superannuation and retirement pensions? They are not making such a great sacrifice, surely.

The Attorney-General: The reason for this was that the progress of the third stage was to have followed and that the Lord Chief Justice and the judges and the others have postponed for a period of six months receipt of the sums which they would otherwise have expected. I should have thought that this House would be the first to pay tribute to public servants for an action of that kind.
Since 1957 an increase in the salaries of the lower judiciary has been dependent on Orders laid by the Lord Chancellor and subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. In the case of the lower judiciary, increases have been related to increases in the higher Civil Service. It has always been assumed that Orders to give effect to increases corresponding with the Plowden recommendations would follow the Civil Service increases and that parallel action would be taken administratively to keep other members of the lower judiciary, who do not need Parliamentary Resolution, in step.
But for many years the higher judiciary have been less well treated than either civil servants or the lower judiciary,

largely because until 1965 a special Act of Parliament was required to increase their salaries. Even since 1965 an Order in Council backed by affirmative Resolution has been necessary in their case, although not in the case of civil servants as they have no such procedure.
Since no comparability has ever been established between the higher judiciary and the civil servants, the effect has been gradually to erode the position of the High Court judges, both against the Civil Service and against the lower judiciary, with the latter of whom, of course, as I have said, there must be a certain comparability.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I had a question on this point about comparability.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Reading."] I am about to read from the Statutory Instruments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking the House to approve. He has been talking about comparability with regard to the lower judiciary. Would he explain the lack of comparability between the last Statutory Instrument of 1969, No. 1008, and the present one, in that the previous one, introduced by the Labour Government, said on each of the particular increases that the salaries should be raised to a certain amount, say £7,400, instead of the present salary of, say, £6,550? In the draft Statutory Instrument—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Member, to be effective, should make his interventions as short as possible and not seek to make a speech. He will have plenty of opportunity to catch my eye later on.

Mr. Kaufman: I apologise, Sir. I had only one sentence more. This is a complicated point. In the Instruments which are being introduced tonight, we just have the new salary and not the old from which it is being increased. Why has that detail been left out?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman points out that the Order does not set out the differences of the increases from the previous salaries. But it is the purpose of the Minister in producing an Order to explain that, as I propose to do. But I will inquire into this point.
I return to the question of the High Court judges' salaries. There was no increase in them for 100 years, and then


there was no increase between 1954 and 1966. For 12 years, therefore, they were stationary. They remained from 1966 at £10,000 until this year, when they were raised to £11,500 to take account—[Interruption.] I have been speaking about the first stage in the Plowden recommendations—of the fact that the Civil Service pay of a Permanent Secretary had been 60 per cent. of that of a High Court judge in 1938, and was £400 more than that of a High Court judge at 1st July, 1970. The effect of implementing the third stage of the Plowden recommendations on 1st January, 1971, would have been to give the Permanent Secretary a £2,500 excess in salary over a puisne judge of the High Court.
Moreover, the differential between the higher and lower judiciary was also eroded. The lower judiciary have climbed from just over one-third of the salary of a High Court judge to just over two-thirds, and it is not proposed by these Instruments to restore that differential. But it has been abundantly plain that to maintain standards in the High Court Bench, further erosion must be prevented.
During the period under review, in spite of increases in the number of judges which have been called for and debated in this House in recent years, the volume of work transacted by the courts has increased enormously. The number of criminal appeals or applications for leave rose between 1965 and 1969 by 221 per cent. The number of appeals heard rose by 119 per cent. The number of sitting days in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, increased by 31 per cent., and the number of criminal trials increased by 42 per cent. The number of civil and divorce proceedings, excluding undefended divorces, increased by 86 per cent.
Nobody should underestimate the productivity which has, unfortunately, been created by the amount of crime which is occurring throughout the country—[Interruption.]—and which, I am sure, hon. Gentlemen opposite totally deplore. Nobody should underestimate the vast increase in the amount of judicial work which the judges must do. High Court judges who are on circuit are away from home for a great many months of the year and—[Interruption.]—whatever hon.

Gentlemen opposite may think, they are considered by the people of this country to be performing a most important and responsible task.
As I have explained, these Orders provide the third and last stage of increases based on the proposals for the higher Civil Service in 1969. One must, therefore, go back to the date of the last salary increases before 1969 in considering the annual rate of increase, and in the case of the higher judiciary it was 1st April, 1966, and in the case of the lower judiciary it was 19th May, 1966.

Mr. Ray Carter: rose—

The Attorney-General: I will not give way.

Mr. Carter: May I—

The Attorney-General: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) must contain himself. The Attorney-General has seen him. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to give way, he will do so. If not, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

The Attorney-General: It is wise to finish a sentence before giving way. That is the only way to state an argument.
I was about to deal with the annual percentage rate of increase. In the case of the High Court judge the annual rate of increase is 8·1 per cent. and that of the county court judge 7·8 per cent. This is since the last salary increase immediately preceding Stage 1. For the Master of the Rolls, the Lords of Appeal and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division it is 7 per cent. The annual percentage increase for the puisne judge is 8·1; Lord President of the Court of Session 8·1 per cent. and Lord Justice Clerk—a Scottish judge—7·5 per cent.; judges of the Court of Session 8·2 per cent.; Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland 7·6 per cent., and puisne judges of the High Court of Justice of Northern Ireland 8·1 per cent. The annual percentage increases of the lower judiciary are slightly lower: recorders of Liverpool and Manchester 9·8; county court judges 7·8, and metropolitan magistrates 6·4.

Mr. Carter: Will the Attorney-General inform the House to what extent the national interest has been taken into account in these proposed increases, and to what further extent productivity has played a part in them?

The Attorney-General: Some hon. Members opposite pointed out to me how enormous had been the increase in productivity. It is no good hon. Members trying to avoid the fact that there is this vast amount of crime which has to be dealt with by the courts. In the national interest it is of the very greatest importance that we should have men of ability and integrity who are able to carry out their duties in presiding over the criminal and civil courts.
The proposed increases for the higher judiciary of the three parts of the United Kingdom to which I have referred will cost £304,650 and £172,900 for the lower judiciary of England and Wales.
I am conscious that the judges, unlike the chairmen of the nationalised industries, and unlike the civil servants, are compelled to submit to the affirmative Resolution procedure, and are thus put in an invidious position compared with persons of comparable employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
Of the proposed review body which the Government have undertaken to set up, I would repeat, lest there should be any misunderstanding, as there may have been, the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 2nd November:
The Government intend … to establish at an early date three Review Bodies with a degree of interlocking membership. One will advise on the remuneration of the boards of nationalised industries, the Judiciary, senior civil servants, senior officers of the Armed Forces and such other groups as might be appropriately considered with them. Another will advise on the pay of the Armed Forces generally. A third will advise on the remuneration of doctors and dentists in the National Health Service. These three Review Bodies will have at their disposal and working to their directions a secretariat provided by a new Office of Manpower Economics."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 668.]
The Lord Chancellor will consult the judiciary, and, indeed, has already taken certain steps to do so, and he has found—although I emphasise that the consultations will continue—that it is, and will be, agreeable to the judiciary that the

higher group Review Body should undertake the reviews connected with them as it will the review connected with the boards of the nationalised industries and the senior officers of the Armed Forces; that is to say, the review body which will advise on these offices and posts will advise on the salaries of the judiciary.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman trying to convince the House that the financial need of all the groups of persons of whom he has spoken was so great and they were so impoverished that they had to be given such a rise in advance of the establishment of the review body?

The Attorney-General: I am not so arrogant as to think that I shall ever convince the hon. Gentleman of anything. I am merely engaged in moving certain Orders which are before the House.
There seldom is a time when it is convenient from the point of view of public opinion for a Government to propose higher salaries for the judiciary. After all, if hon. Members appear before judges some will do so in their professional capacity and others will do so in not very pleasant circumstances. It is always difficult, as the previous Government found, to move that there should be an increase in judicial salaries. I acknowledge that the previous Administration, I think twice in one Parliament, faced this difficulty, and as I recollect it they received our support as an Opposition.
It is vital that we should be able to recruit, and, therefore to pay, the judiciary properly. We must attract the ablest men. We must not lose them—I make no apology for saying this—to other activities such as commerce. We must pay appropriate salaries for work which is of prime national importance. The standards of our higher judiciary, and indeed those of all our judiciary, are higher than those which will be found anywhere else in the world.
I invite those who are tempted to look to other systems of organising legal professions to compare the integrity of those systems with that of our own legal system and that of our own judges. We need a judiciary which is able to deal with the complex matters of the law which the House of Commons enacts.


We need a judiciary which is able to preside over the criminal tribunals and which receives the acknowledgement of the people as being a judiciary which is unequalled anywhere in the world. It is essential that no risk should be run of lowering standards as a result of failing to provide the judges with fair and proper remuneration.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am very pleased again to voice my strong objection to the Orders and my objection to almost every word that the Attorney-General has uttered.
Hon. Members who have been here during the last few years will know that I have been one of those amongst a few on this side who have consistently and persistently opposed these various increases. I have heard the legal fraternity of one party or the other read exactly the same brief, no doubt prepared by the same people, except that tonight the Attorney-General, unlike his predecessor, did not mention for the benefit of new Members of the House the various "perks" that judges receive. He mentioned the hardship endured by these poor judges having to be away from home. I have no interest to declare, because I am a London Member. I do not have to be away from home when I attend the House, but many hon. Members do. Their hotel expenses have risen by leaps and bounds, not merely since 1966 and 1967, but since 1964.
The same Government who propose these increases have said that it is wrong for Members of Parliament to have any increase, although they have had no increase since 1964, because it would set a bad example for industrial workers and lower-paid workers. Yet, almost in that same week—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) has an interest in this matter. He is one of the closed shop of the legal profession. I know that the legal profession are here in force. I know that they are all waiting for judgeships. The hon. and learned Member has always been loyal in his service to his closed shop. Nevertheless, I insist on saying what I believe to be the truth.
In the past week the Government have been saying that it is wrong, immoral and indecent for the electricity workers

to ask for more than 10 per cent. because it would affect the national economy, and in the very same week they have declined to give anything to the old-age pensioners. In an answer to a Question of mine, I learn that since the present government has been in power, from June until October, there has been a 2·2 per cent. depreciation in the value of the social benefits, with a corresponding running deficit of some 6·6 per cent. The old-age pensioners, disabled persons and those in receipt of social welfare benefits have been told that they cannot have an increase but that the matter may be reviewed towards the end of next year. I do not know what the depreciation in the value of the benefits will be by then.
Yet the Attorney-General comes here and has the audacity to shed crocodile tears over these poor judges who, he says, have to meet hardships of travelling with their butlers, with their lodging allowances, their cars, their secretaries and so on.

Mr. Kaufman: I go all the way with my hon. Friend except that I believe he is in error on one point. They are not crocodile tears that the Attorney-General is shedding; they are real tears. The plight of the judges really does move him.

Mr. Lewis: The Attorney-General may know more about this from personal experience than I do, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has aspirations. I do not know. Let me, for the sake of argument, accept that the Attorney-General is right. If they are suffering, surely the sick and disabled must be suffering much more. They do not get lodging allowances; they do not have their food supplied to them. They do not get the various incidentals which the judges get.
I do not know why the Attorney-General did not tell us that the judges will have had a 61·7 per cent. increase since 1966. They come out with this magnificent gesture and say "We will hold a moratorium and forgo our salary increase for a period of three or four months"—not that it will affect their pension of course. They will hold their salaries to that 61·7 per cent.
Perhaps a judge will be appointed to inquire into the electricity workers' claim.


Perhaps that judge will bear in mind, when taking the chair of the court of inquiry into the electricity workers' claim, that whereas the judges had a 25 per cent. increase in 1966, 15 per cent. in the first part of 1970 and 21·7 per cent. in the latter part of 1970—a total of 61·7 per cent. in less than four years—the electricity workers' claim is based on 10 per cent.
This has a bearing on the whole policy of the Government. The Government—it is irrefutable, because they have declared the figures themselves—have deliberately increased the cost of living since they have been in power. The increase is 6·6 per cent. now, and by the end of the year, no doubt, it will be more. They have deliberately increased prices, allowing food prices to rise without taking any action. The standard of living of the workers has depreciated by 6·6 per cent. under this Government, and since 1964 up to and including the latest figures for October there has been a 24·1 per cent. increase in the cost of living. To compensate for that 21·7 per cent. rise in the cost of living, the judges have had increases totalling about 78 per cent.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: A High Court judge in 1820 or thereabouts had a salary of £5,000 a year. That salary remained unchanged, with no percentage increase whatever, until about 15 years ago.

Mr. Lewis: We are discussing this Order. If I went back 100 years, there might be some doubt about whether the hon. Gentleman was present then—[Interruption.]—and I have no knowledge whether the Government were in power then, either. I think not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is rather too much background conversation. I hope that hon. Members will attend carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who is anxious to get on with his speech. I think that that will meet all our requirements best.

Mr. Lewis: I have always opposed increases of this kind, and on each occasion the legal profession, which is usually strangely absent for other business, has turned up to protect the interests of its closed shop. I have a suggestion to put to the Attorney-General. Perhaps, rather than have a review body, he could amend

the Industrial Relations Bill so as to deal with the lawyers' closed shop. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has pointed out, there are plenty of legal luminaries who are able, ready and available to take these jobs. They do not get the opportunity because the closed shop prevents them.
Lawyers talk about the closed shop among electricity workers or other manual workers. They ought to look to their own closed shop, the most vicious type of closed shop in any occupation.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I am not sure that I should keep giving way. I can see Mr. Deputy Speaker giving me some hard looks.

Mr. Jenkins: I want my hon. Friend to help the House by clarifying one point. Apparently, the large increases of which we have been hearing—40 per cent. and more—are not inflationary, but a 10 per cent. increase is inflationary. Could my hon. Friend explain at what point an increase becomes small enough to be inflationary?

Mr Lewis: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) will remember that 24 Motions appear on the Order Paper all saying that justice must not only be done but must be clearly seen to be done, and he has signed many of them. He will know that I have asked the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all other members of the Government whether, with all the administrative machinery which they have at their disposal, they can find out how it is wrong and inflationary for policemen to ask for more than 10 per cent. but not for judges.
The Attorney-General spoke of crime; but the police have something to do with the prevention and detection of crime, and the police are underpaid, overworked and short-staffed. The Government say that the police claim of 35 per cent is inflationary. Why does not the Attorney-General think that the police should get as much as the judges, which is 61.7 per cent? The police are as important as the judges, and some of my hon. Friends might think that they were even more important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but in his understandable enthusiasm he is straying wide of the Order. Perhaps he will direct his attention particularly to its terms.

Mr. Lewis: I am surprised that you should have said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I thought that you heard the Attorney-General, as I did, and he made comparisons and explained why these legal luminaries should have so large an increase. I was making a comparison with the police, as he did. I was about to explain—and I think that I am entitled to do so—why I cannot support an increase of 61.7 per cent. for a small group of people who are well paid and who do not have to meet the increases in the cost of living and the other difficulties which face other people. I was about to explain that if there is to be a claim for one section of the population, the police are entitled to come before them. I was about to say that the police should be considered in preference to the judges, but that might be ultra vires or infra dig.
On this occasion I hope to be joined by a number of my hon. Friends, and I hope on this, as on a previous occasion, to be able to force a Division. There is a vast difference between this and the previous occasion. Last time, the then Government did not deliberately increase the cost of living, as the present Government are doing. The Minister of Agriculture has admitted it. The Ministry of Agriculture and other Ministries are refusing to accept Questions from hon. Members about the action they intend to take to control the cost of living.
Is it not the case that, while condemning the electricity workers for asking for 10 per cent., the Government did not condemn increases of 100 per cent. and 150 per cent. in the cost of candles and batteries which became scare? Hence, the Government have deliberately increased the cost of living and depreciated the standard of living of the mass of our people.
If the Government honestly and sincerely meant what they said during the General Election campaign—that they could reduce prices at a stroke of the pen—what is the need for this increase? The Government have pledged themselves that the cost of living will come

down and that the purchasing power of the £ will go up; so in effect the judges will get two increases—an increase in cash and an increase through appreciation of the value of the £, although that increase has been sadly lacking in recent months. In addition to that, they have been promised a tax reduction worth £300 or £400 a year to them through a reduction in income tax from next April.
So, although the judges may be holding part of the increase back, they are, in fact, only holding back a couple of hundred £s for a few months. When the Government set up this tribunal for the electricity workers, will they suggest that a solution to the problem could be an offer of a 61·7 per cent. increase, with 21·7 per cent. now provided that they hold back the rest until July? I think the electricity workers would accept that. I know that I would accept it, as would my hon. Friends.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I declare my interest at once. I am not a judge; I am a mere advocate.
I have always listened to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) in these debates, which we have about every four or five years, and the same record comes out and is put over in the same way. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite will listen to me for a moment, because I speak with great sincerity, I ask them whether it is not right to say that, in England, we have the highest regard for our judicial system—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Wales."]—and Wales and Scotland and everywhere within the United Kingdom. I adhere to that view. Would hon. Members disagree that we are proud of our judicial system throughout the United Kingdom? We are not so proud of our electricity board, but never mind—we shall be very shortly.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Crowder: I shall give way the moment I have said anything controversial. If hon. Members agree with me that we have the best judicial system in the world, do not they think that we should pay for it in reasonable terms?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Crowder: I am not giving way until I say something absolutely frightful,


which I am very tempted to do. Is it altogether fair to take the judiciary on its own and start comparing it with people who have also perfectly good and reasonable demands upon the public purse, including ourselves as Members of Parliament? In fairness, I should have thought, taking the whole of the circumstantial evidence into account, that in the past the judiciary as a whole have been rather forbearing. If hon. Members wish, as Members of Parliament, to have the best sitting as the judiciary, then we must jolly well pay for it. We get most of the money back in taxes, anyway, so what does it matter?

Mr. Ian Mikardo: rose—

Sir Elwyn Jones: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I find myself somewhat in a difficulty, because I had hoped that I would see the former Attorney-General rise. Then several hon. Members rose, but he did not rise. I waited a long time for him. Now I shall have to call the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Mikardo.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you put me in a very great difficulty, because you have now required me to stand between the House and the voice of my right hon. and learned Friend, which is so much more authoritative and cogent than my own. Therefore, I shall confine myself to a few short minutes, and begin by saying that I am delighted to have the opportunity on this occasion of welcoming back the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) to the service of the House. We do not see him very often, and we miss him very much indeed. We are very glad to see that he has a degree of solidarity with his fellow lawyers, which impels him to leave whatever other avocations normally deprive us of his company to come here and stand shoulder to shoulder with his fellow lawyers, whose faces are being ground in the dust.
I referred to the hon. and learned Member in the tradition of the House as "the hon. and learned Gentleman". It has always niggled me, in the 20-odd years that I have been in this House, why the only "bods" who are "learned" are lawyers—

An Hon. Member: Only some lawyers!

Mr. Mikardo: Only some lawyers, and I am not sure that even some lawyers are the most learned. We might have the most distinguished chemist, the most distinguished philosopher, the most distinguished physicist, the most distinguished doctor—and we have had a number of very distinguished doctors in this House—

An Hon. Member: And trade unionists!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but none of these doctors is in the Order. If he would confine himself to the Order, I should be most obliged.

Mr. Mikardo: I am most obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I accept your Ruling. I appreciate that I must not talk about ignorant people, such as doctors, chemists and philosophers. We are talking about learned people.
I desire to make only three points, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I shall do quickly so that the House will have an opportunity of hearing my right hon. and learned Friend.
First, I should like to say that I am sorry that my hon. Friend and neighbour from West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) so grossly understated his case. He has put all of us in his debt by doing the arithmetic and calculating the percentages. But he made one very serious omission, which trades unionists always take into account; that is, in addition to the wages, there are the fringe benefits to consider. On the back of this Order there is what is called a Schedule, but it refers only to money. It does not list the fringe benefits. What about judges' lodgings, which I am told have the best cellars in Great Britain?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Mikardo: If hon. Gentlemen opposite dispute that, I will accept their judgment since they have had a taste and I have not, and they obviously know better than I do. However, that is what I have been told.
What about judges' servants? What about the motor cars that are provided and all the rest of it? Electricians have


to provide their own lodgings. They do not get any wine or bitter beer on the fringe of their employment, and they certainly do not get any servants. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, had taken the opportunity of doing a little more research, on top of the great deal he has already carried out into this subject, his percentages would have been very much higher indeed.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Before the debate descends into total farce, would the hon. Gentleman accept from me that, in fact, judges' lodgings are necessary because judges cannot simply stay at ordinary hotels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For the very good and simple reason that they may be got at—

Mr. John Mendelson: Disgraceful!

Mr. Miscampbell: —not, of course, by litigants but by criminals who may be appearing before them. It is for this reasons that over the generations they have been kept separate in their lodgings.

Mr. Mikardo: I very much resent two things in the hon. Gentleman's rather lengthy intervention. One was his observation that the debate was generating into a farce, which clearly was an implied criticism of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood. I resent that very much, he should not have done it. Secondly, I resent his suggestion that British judges can be "got at".

Hon. Members: Shame!

Mr. Mikardo: Many workers have to be specially and separately housed. Every tied cottage involves a worker specially housed because of his job. But when the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) can find me a tied agricultural cottage where the State, instead of the employee, pays the rent then I will listen to him. I am not against judges having lodgings if it is thought necessary, but I am saying that they do not pay for them. They are one of the "perks" and such an item should be added into the percentage.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, then spoke about the undesirability of appointing one of these

judges, who have been given an increase of 40, 50 even 60 per cent., as chairman of the tribunal which is to investigate the electricity dispute and telling those workers "It will be grossly inflationary if you are given more than 10 per cent." If the Industrial Relations Bill is enacted, no doubt one of these learned gentlemen will be appointed chairman of the National Industrial Relations Court. He will have a wonderful opportunity to say to workers in dispute "We will fine you lot for demanding an increase in wages a fifth of the amount I myself have just received." If hon. Members opposite think they can sell that to the country, they have another think coming.
I am being quite serious about this. [Interruption.] I do not mind being heckled by hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member's own side will give him a good hearing.

Mr. Mikardo: I share your hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am never worried about heckling from the benches opposite—they are never very good at it—but when my hon. Friends start I am really worried.
I make my last point with real seriousness. Everyone involved with industrial relations knows that the psychological factors are at least as weighty as the physical factors. This is one field in which the extrinsic sometimes weighs more heavily than the intrinsic. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North is right: in this very sensitive field justice must be seen to be done. We shall not get away with a demand—reinforced by legal sanctions—for people not to use their bargaining strength if we get exaggerated increases of this sort.
It would well be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can make out a technical case. I happen not to accept it, but I dare say that if it were a case of arguing the matter in an article he could write a jolly good one. But it does not come over; what comes over is the feel of the thing—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have a little difficulty with old-age pensioners and lower-paid workers demanding increases if the House says, "We can justify this sort of increase at present".
In a way, the postponement for six months does not ease that problem; it


aggravates it, because it is an almost classical example of qui s'excuse, s'accuse—a classical example of people being defensive and saying, "We know that we should not be getting it and that is why we are laying off the situation." If an increase is justified they ought not to have to wait. The fact that they are offering to wait shows that they are sensitive about whether it is justified, and rightly sensitive about the psychological effects on the industrial relations scene.
I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to talk to us but to talk to an old-age pensioners' meeting or to a meeting of lower-paid workers in one of the garment trades, and see how far he will get away with his argument. These Orders are offensive. They exacerbate difficulties that already exist in our society, our social climate and our industrial climate. It was a grave error of the Government to introduce them, and I hope that the House will defeat them.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren: I shall keep the House for only a few minutes. I believe that everybody knows in his heart that for men of this ability the incomes proposed in these Orders are very moderate compared with the incomes paid to people in other professions, or in the City, or among directors of industrial companies, even of the second order. It is of the greatest importance that the very best people should be available for this work.
The other thought which I want to express is that the life of a judge in 1970 is not by any means a bed of roses. The judges' amenities have been eroded compared with former days. The work is most exacting, and there is more of it. A lot has to be done out of court hours. For instance, the reading of criminal appeal paper work often has to be done at weekends.
There is the circuit work, too. However much people may laugh, it really is more agreeable to live at home than to live with other judges for weeks at a time in various provincial centres such as Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool. Many of the wiser judges prefer to go to the Divorce Division because they spend more time in London.
On all these counts, these increases are eminently reasonable and should be supported.

11.17 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: In the light of the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) I do not know whether I ought to declare an interest, save that I think that it might be regarded as a piece of immodesty on my part were I to do so.
We last discussed the remuneration of judges in the House in April of this year, and it fell to me to move the relevant Judges' Remuneration Order.
The salaries of judges, since the Act of Settlement, have been determinable only by Parliament and not by the Executive. The principle behind this procedure is admirable; namely, to preserve the independence of the judiciary, which is, of course, a vital part of our constitution, our freedom, and our liberties.
But, excellent as the principle is, to require Parliament to deal with changes in judicial salaries has produced difficulties in practice. In practice those changes can occur only if the Government of the day decide to take the initiative. It is not something which Parliament itself is normally prompted to undertake. There are, consequently, delays in the making of these changes, and the tendency, historically, has certainly been for this procedure not to benefit the judges, whose salaries, in terms of comparability, have declined as the decades have gone by.
The parliamentary process itself—the business of debating the salaries of the judges—presents its difficulties and complications, because a conflict between Parliament and the judiciary should be avoided. To reduce that risk, and for general convenience, the Labour Government made an important change in the law and enabled judicial salaries to be dealt with by the kind of Orders we are considering tonight. But we took the view that even that did not leave the matter in a satisfactory position, and we thought that the best means of avoiding or reducing embarrassment and to get a just and acceptable result was to create machinery by which the judges' salaries


should be inquired into by an independent body. Indeed, I think that the House has recently indicated—and the Lord President of the Council has given support to the concept—that this would be the best approach to the salaries of Ministers and of Members of Parliament as well.
What the Labour Government had in mind was to amalgamate the Prices and Incomes Board with the Monopolies Commission, and to set up a new Commission on Industry and Manpower, part of whose duties would be to review the remuneration of the judiciary. The previous Lord Chancellor consulted the judges about that, and they found it acceptable.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given some indication tonight of what the Government have in mind, and I should like to ask him a little more about it. As I understand it, the increases proposed tonight have not been the subject of any reference to any independent review body, and I should like to ask him when the new so-called higher group review body is to begin to operate. What are its terms of reference to be? Who is to compose it? These are important matters that the House should know about, and I hope that we shall have further light thrown upon them before the end of the debate.
As to the increases proposed in these Orders, it is, I think, the case that the higher judiciary have fallen behind in relation to salaries paid to men at the tops of other professions and in the higher Civil Service. In view of the important rôle that the higher judiciary plays in the life of our country and our society, this cannot be thought to be a satisfactory situation.
But inevitably, as we have seen in the course of the debate in the House tonight, there was bound to be strong criticism of these proposals, coming as they do at a time when ordinary working people are, as a result of the Government's policy, having to face a decline in their standard of living and an increase in their cost of living. This will be the inevitable consequence of the mini-Budget, and the House has already been reminded that the Government's income tax proposals will benefit the rich far more than the average wage earner. The

richer someone is, the more he will benefit.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, the insensitivity of the Government in introducing these measures just now, when, as we have been told, the electricians, with their excellent productivity record, are being told that a 10 per cent. increase in remuneration would be so psychologically damaging that the national economy cannot stand it, is really astonishing.
What troubles me, and what I find to be a disturbing thought, is that because of the timing of the introduction of these Orders some of the disapproval might brush off on to the judiciary itself. Indeed, I venture to think that the judges themselves may have been aware of the dangers of this, and that this is reflected in their action in voluntarily deferring the enjoyment of the proposed measures for six months.
On the merits of the Orders, it is the case that judges have fallen behind those in somewhat comparable positions, although no positions are truly comparable in our society with that of the High Court judge. To perform the duties of a contemporary High Court judge, outstanding and, indeed, quite exceptional qualities are required; not merely abilities as an advocate but other qualities like compassion, human understanding, patience, tolerance and, I hope, a liberal and modern outlook towards the problems of the day.
These men do not exist in abundance, whether they be barristers or solicitors. These days, much of the work of the judiciary is concerned with crime, and their judgment and their competence can affect profoundly not only the lives of those with whom they have to deal but their families and the approach of society to the serious problems involved.
It is not the attractive plum that it used to be, by reason of the additional work and of having to be away from home and family for more than half the year. For these reasons, there is a real danger that if economic factors discourage those best qualified to perform these heavy duties from coming forward the quality of the judiciary may suffer.
As for the lower judiciary, I understand that the proposed changes follow on the


increases in Civil Service pay, in accordance with the more or less automatic practice since the war.
What is deplorable is that these Orders are introduced against the background of increasing social tension which the Government's policy in the whole field of economic and social affairs is producing. As we have seen in this debate, it is inevitable that the acceptability of these Orders will suffer in consequence.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: Normally, this is a debate which branches out a little, as it did in 1966. But there is always a serious purpose behind debates like this.
There is a good deal of common ground between the two sides of the House. We all have respect for our judicial system and the quality of our judges. We all have respect for our engineers and electricians. We all take pride in our professional people, our electrical workers, and those who do a job which needs to be done.
What is at stake here is quite different. The Attorney-General talked about coin-paring different positions. I do not know whether he was conscious of what he was saying, in the light of what we have heard from many of his right hon. and hon. Friends in the past. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the chairmen of nationalised industries and senior civil servants have been receiving increases and that that was an important reason why our judges should receive these enormous increases. But this is known in industry as "leapfrogging", and it is regarded as the worst possible sin by the Secretary of State for Employment. The Attorney-General has argued tonight in favour of a classic example of leapfrogging.
We are told by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that what is wrong with the country is the claim of so many groups of working people in industry that, because someone else has received an increase, the differential has been upset and they are entitled to an increase to maintain it.
It was interesting to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman use the word "differential". For a moment, I thought that I was present at a meeting of shop stewards of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers. The

differential is what the argument is about in many industries.
My second point concerns the basic agreement between the two Front Benches. We are accustomed to that in debates of this kind. We had the same basic agreement in 1966. The explanation is simple. We do not have the representatives of two different trade unions or of one union and an employer putting forward their respective cases. There is no demarcation dispute between the two Front Benches. They are all members of the same union. That is why we have had this wonderful unanimity.
This is not only a matter of psychology. What we are debating tonight goes to the roots of our class society. It is a matter of status, not just of income, which makes the Attorney-General talk about differentials. It is of course an important matter to members of the same club in the West End of London whether a Permanent Secretary is £2,500 ahead. No judge can accept that—that is his argument. But that argument does not apply to workpeople or to 85 per cent. of my constituents who are also very much concerned with the respect given to their job in industry—[Interruption.] I do not take any notice of the hon. Gentleman: commercial radio has not been introduced in this House.
Some of us intend to divide the House not because we are any less concerned than the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the quality of our judicial system, or because we are opposed to a review from time to time of the income of Her Majesty's judges. What we say is that the increases are meant not only to compensate the particular people involved fully, and more than fully, for an increase in the cost of living, when the increase in the cost of living is not accepted as an argument for a group of industrial workers, and, secondly, that it is clear that the Government have no intention of changing their attitude on these matters.
They are facing a very powerfully organised group of people. In the 1966 debate, evidence was given to the House that, on a previous occasion, the judges went to see the Lord Chancellor, who is their senior shop steward and said, "You had better get on with the job or there will be trouble." With such a shop


steward, one does not need a very powerful union of one million members. What the Government are doing tonight is underlining that their class attitude has never changed. It is because we want to tell the country about the injustice in the way that different sections of the people are approached by the Government that we will divide the House.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: It is clear, in the less than five years that I have been in the House, that lawyers, particularly members of the Bar, are desperately unpopular and nothing which will happen tonight will lessen that unpopularity. Having established that I am one of those unpopular people, I would say that probably the fundamental reason why High Court judges, for instance, want an increase in salary is not because of the net income they will get, but because of the effect it will have on their pensions.
The pensions of the judiciary are related to the income they receive in their last year of office. In the arrangements for their pension there is no provision for an escalator clause. In other words, when a judge retires, he gets a fixed pension based on half the final year's salary, and if he is still alive 15 years later it has not increased.
To rectify that, one does not need this kind of Order at all. One requires an Act of Parliament to establish the principle that pensions should have an escalator clause tied to the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Order cannot be amended.

Mr. Lyons: It is easier and quicker to put an Instrument of this kind through Parliament than it is to introduce a new Measure designed to establish a new principle affecting other types of Government servants.
The Attorney-General said that judges were now working far harder. Unlike in industry, one cannot get more work out of a judge by giving him a machine. In other words, there is a limit to the work he can do. I accept that that work is hard. But the answer is not to give him a rise but to create more judges.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of an increase in crime. I agree, but the county court judges do not deal

with crime. One cannot argue that a county court judge should have a substantial salary increase because of this factor when he is not dealing with crime. The Attorney-General is in the difficulty of there having been an Instrument in May, 1970, increasing High Court judges' salaries from £10,000 to £11,500 and now, seven months later, we have a further Order giving them an increase of £2,500. Going back to 1966, there has been a rise of 40 per cent., which makes the timing of the Order so unfortunate.

11.36 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I have one advantage over the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones). I do not have as a political neighbour the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who has graced these debates over the years, certainly since I have been in the House. I also have the advantage of facing the hon. Member for West Ham, North, whereas the former Attorney-General has his hon. Friend on his flank.
Perhaps the hon. Member for West Ham, North will allow me to say that tonight he made his Mark 1 speech. We appreciate how deeply he feels about this matter and how often he has expressed his views in the House.
When we address ourselves to the question of increases in judges' salaries it is always a matter of difficulty, mainly because of their constitutional position. Formerly they were dealt with by Statute. More recently their salaries have been dealt with by Orders. I was, therefore, glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak of the plans of the previous Administration and welcome, if with reservations, the proposals for the new review body with regard to the making of recommendations for judges' salaries.
I have looked into the points raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). I gather that these matters have always appeared in this form—that is, by judicial salaries Orders, though there has been a difference in the other Instrument in earlier years.
As for the psychological factor mentioned by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), I agree that there is a difficulty at this time—this applies to any time—in introducing these proposals. We must not forget that the judges and the


Lord Chief Justice took this factor into account and postponed these increases for six months. They are entitled now to receive them and also to receive our tribute for their action in waiting for this time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) said that all men of sense would accept how essential it is that we should be able to provide, and ought to provide, a proper salary for men doing this task.
I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South that the intention is to set up the new review body early in the new year, and I have the authority of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to say that the terms of reference will be discussed with the party opposite to make sure that they are sensible and appropriate so that the new review body can do the task it will have before it.
As the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) said, judges are not machines. We cannot give them machines to make them increase their productivity, but what I say with all sincerity—and I appreciate what the hon. Member for Poplar has said about the psychological factor—it is of the very greatest importance to us as legislators to do all we can to ensure that we have a properly recruited and properly remunerated judiciary to carry out a very important task.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Attorney-General says that there is a difference between the present draft Statutory Instrument and the Statutory Instrument of 1969 but, with respect, it was I who pointed out that difference in the first place. He has not told us why there is this difference.

The reason is important. Whereas the Labour Government introduced an increase—in my view, misguidedly—but were honest enough to tell the House the difference so that the House could judge, the present Government are so guilty about this present proposal that they are trying to hide the differentials by not stating the increase as a percentage.

The other point that has not emerged particularly, though my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) verged on it, is this question of the differential. It is interesting to note that not only does this draft Statutory Instrument provide for differentials but it extends them. For instance, the higher the salary of the county court judges, not only the higher the increase but the higher the percentage increase. A Metropolitan magistrate earning £6,850 gets a 13 per cent. increase, a county court judge earning £7,850 gets a 20 per cent. increase, and the Recorder of Manchester, earning £9,500, gets a 28 per cent. increase—which, incidentally, would be sufficient to give a £1 increase to fifty of my pensioner constituents.

Further, not only do they get a higher percentage increase the more they earn but the greater is the tax concession to be given to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This increase has been postponed a little, but it comes in nicely in time for them to get a larger tax concession—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER, put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 39.

Division No. 50.]
AYES
[11.44 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Astor, John
Chapman, Sydney
Fidler, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clegg, Walter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Batsford, Brian
Coombs, Derek
Fortescue, Tim


Benyon, W.
Corfield, F. V.
Fowler, Norman


Biffen, John
Cormack, Patrick
Gardner, Edward


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boscawen, R. T.
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Bowden, Andrew
Curran, Charles
Gorst, John


Braine, Bernard
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gray, Hamish


Bray, Ronald
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Green, Alan


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Drayson, G. B.
Gurden, Harold


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Dykes, Hugh
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Buck, Antony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eyre, Reginald
Hannam, John (Exeter)




Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Havers, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hiley, Joseph
Moate, Roger
Sharpies, Richard


Holland, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hordern, Peter
Money, Ernie
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Monro, Hector
Simeons, Charles


Howell, David (Guildford)
Montgomery, Fergus
Soref, Harold


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Speed, Keith


Hunt, John
Mudd, David
Spence, John


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Neave, Airey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Normanton, Tom
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tebbit, Norman


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kilfedder, James
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kinsey, J. R.
Peel, John
Tilney, John


Kirk, Peter
Percival, Ian
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Knox, David
Pounder, Rafton
Tugendhat, Christopher


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hn, J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Longden, Gilbert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Ward, Dame Irene


Loveridge, John
Raison, Timothy
Weatherill, Bernard


MacArthur, Ian
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McCrindle, R. A.
Redmond, Robert
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McLaren, Martin
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Worsley, Marcus


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Roes, Peter (Dover)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Mather, Carol
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mawby, Ray
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Jasper More and


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.




NOES


Ashton, Joe
Huckfield, Leslie
Paisley, Mr. Ian


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Kerr, Russell
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Loughlin, Charles
Steel, David


Doig, Peter
McCann, John
Swain, Thomas


Dormand, J. D.
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, J. Kevin
Torney, Tom


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, John



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mantling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Stanley Orme and


Hardy, Peter
Oram, Bert
Mr. Gerald Kaufman.


Horam, John

Resolved,
That the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.—[The Attorney-General]:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 40.

Division No. 51.]
AYES
[11.53 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Gurden, Harold


Astor, John
Crowder, F. P.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Atkins, Humphrey
Curran, Charles
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Benyon, W.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biffen, John
Drayson, G. B.
Haselhurst, Alan


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dykes, Hugh
Havers, Michael


Boscawen, R. T.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hawkins, Paul


Bowden, Andrew
Eyre, Reginald
Hicks, Robert


Braine, Bernard
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hiley, Joseph


Bray, Ronald
Fidler, Michael
Holland, Philip


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hordern, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Buck, Antony
Fortescue, Tim
Howell, David (Guildford)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fowler, Norman
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Carlisle, Mark
Gardner, Edward
Hunt, John


Chapman, Sydney
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Goodhew, Victor
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Coombs, Derek
Corst, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Corfield, F. V.
Gray, Hamish
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Cormack, Patrick
Green, Alan
Kershaw, Anthony




Kilfedder, James
Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Kinsey, J. R.
Neave, Airey
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Kirk, Peter
Normanton, Tom
Simeons, Charles


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Soref, Harold


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Speed, Keith


Le Marchant, Spencer
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Spence, John


Longden, Gilbert
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Loveridge, John
Peel, John
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


MacArthur, Ian
Percival, Ian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


McCrindle, R. A.
Pounder, Rafton
Tebbit, Norman


McLaren, Martin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Tilney, John


Mather, Carol
Raison, Timothy
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Maude, Angus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Redmond, Robert
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Ward, Dame Irene


Miscampbell, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Weatherill, Bernard


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Moate, Roger
Ridsdale, Julian
Worsley, Marcus


Molyneaux, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Money, Ernie
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Monro, Hector
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Montgomery, Fergus
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Mare, Jasper
Sharples, Richard
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)






NOES


Ashton, Joe
Horam, John
Pendry, Tom


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Huckfield, Leslie
Prescott, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Steel, David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Swain, Thomas


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Tinn, James


Dorman, J. D.
McCann, John
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred
McElhone, Frank
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, J. Kevin



Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Stanley Orme and


Hamling, William
Dram, Bert
Mr. Gerald Kaufman.


Hardy, Peter
Paisley, Mr. Ian

Orders of the Day — CHURCH OF ENGLAND (MEASURES)

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: I beg to move,
That the Church Commissioners Measure 1970, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if with this we discuss the second Motion,
That the Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure 1970, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Mr. Worsley: I intend to introduce these Measures extremely briefly. If any hon. Member wishes to refer to them, I will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy

Speaker, and, with the leave of the House, to speak again.
The first, the Church Commissioners Measure, 1970, is needed simply because in 1964 the House of Commons approved the Church Commissioners Measure which brought about a considerable reorganisation of the administration of the Church Commissioners. In particular, it separated what had been a single committee which dealt with both matters of income and expenditure into two committees, namely, the Assets Committee and the General Purposes Committee, one dealing with assets and the other the way in which those assets were spent.
The committees set up under that Measure are statutory and, therefore, in order to make any change in their powers or size it is necessary to come to the House. One of the recommendations of Lord Monckton's Commission under which this Measure was passed was that the administration of the Church Commissioners should be considered every five years. Such a review has taken place


and the only change recommended is simply that both of the two committees I have mentioned should be increased in terms of statutory minimum by two members.
In the case of the Assets Committee, the present membership consists of the Chairman, the First Church Estates Commissioner, one clergyman and three laymen. The House will appreciate that such a very small membership of a committee dealing with very great responsibilities causes difficulties if any of its members are away or abroad or ill. Simply for this reason and for no other, it is requested that the ability be written in by this Measure to have two more members of that committee. The General Purposes Committee is a larger body but it is felt that it, too, should have the ability to have two more members. That is the whole purpose of the Church Commissioners Measure and I commend it to the House.
The Special Majorities Measure refers to the General Synod of the Church of England, which has replaced the National Assembly of the Church of England, generally known as the Church Assembly. Perhaps it is a little anomalous in the sense that this Measure, which was passed by the Church Assembly, should refer to the Synod in future. All this Measure seeks to do is to make two relatively small changes in the procedures of the General Synod.
Both these changes would allow the General Synod to have the power in certain cases to take decisions by special majorities rather than by simple majorities. A special majority is merely something other than a simple majority. It could be a majority of three-quarters or of two-thirds. This idea originates from the proposition in Convocations, when the proposals for unity with the Methodist Church were considered, that a three-quarters majority should be necessary before a decision was taken. That idea was accepted, but a three-quarters majority was not achieved in all the Houses. It is felt that, in future, similar cases—union with other Churches—it would be useful if the Synod were able to decide that the decision should be taken by special majority. That is the first proposition in this Measure. It could

either be a special majority of the General Synod itself or of its constituent Houses or of both.
The second principal point in this Measure is the desirability that, if the Synod wishes to suspend its own standing orders, it should have the power to make a rule to say that those Standing Orders should be suspended only by a special majority. It is visualised that it would be only in very unusual circumstances when something more than a simple majority would be required.
That is the purpose of the Special Majorities Measure. The House will feel, I believe—it has often shown itself to be sensitive on this point—that it provides some sort of protection of minorities in the Church and I hope, therefore, that the Measure will also find the approval of the House.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome these simple but very important Measures. It is interesting to note—I believe that I am correct in saying this—that these are the last two Measures to come from the old Church Assembly. In future, all the Measures will come from the Synod, rather than from the Church Assembly. This is quite a historic occasion in many ways, for this is the last Measure to come from that other place, and we now start with this very exciting new synodical government.
It is right that there should be the extra number of two to help in dealing with the assets of the Church Commissioners, which are very large and mean a tremendous amount of work. The report of the Ecclesiastical Committee stated that five years' experience had proved that two more were needed, and, while one does not want to appoint more than necessary, it is important to have the help which is required. The report went on to mention flexibility to meet future possible needs, and it is right to provide for the future.
As most hon. Members probably know, I have been a very severe critic of some actions of the Church Commissioners, particularly those concerned with one of the major assets; that is, the farms and agricultural holdings. I have severely criticised their amalgamation policy and their rents, but I do not want to go into those matters tonight. However,


mistake which I made. I made an accusation as regards the succession of sons, and said that the Church Commissioners did not take very much interest, or give very much opportunity for sons to continue tenancies. I have looked into this matter carefully, and have been shown figures of what has happened, and I must say that I was wrong Therefore, I should like to withdraw that accusation, and this is a very good time to do so. However, I do not withdraw my other accusations. What I said earlier was coloured very much by a very real local problem, when a near relative was not given a chance. But I thought it was important that I should make that apology and withdraw what I said.
I should be out of order if I spoke at length on the Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure, but I should like to say that it is very important that the word "Synodical" should be heard in this Chamber, perhaps for the first time. There is a great future for synodical government and I believe that this very small Measure is a worthwhile one. All who are interested in this great Church of England look forward to very great things coming from synodical government in the future, and I personally look forward with great interest to Measures being brought from that assembly to this assembly here. I wish it every success.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Church Commissioners Measure 1970, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Resolved,
That the Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure, 1970, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Worsley.]

Orders of the Day — COLEFORD MAGISTRATES (MR. BROOKES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The case I wish to raise concerns one of my constituents, Mr. Albert Brookes. Mr. Brookes entered public life in the Forest of Dean in 1925, became a magistrate in 1941 and was vice-chairman of the bench from 1953 to 1966, on which date he became chairman of the Coleford magistrates. Therefore, he acted as a magistrate in that area for 29 years. He was due to retire in December this year because of the age limit, but he was sacked from the Commission by the Lord Chancellor in October of this year, some two and a half months before he was due to retire.
If one was faced merely with a recital of those facts, one would feel that this was a man who had committed some heinous crime or who had suddenly began to embark on a life of immorality. But no such charge of any kind is made against Mr. Brookes. I consider that he was a victim of a nasty, mean, vindictive piece of political spite and that there are two persons primarily involved.
One is the clerk to the magistrates' court at Coleford, and the other—much as I regret to say this—is the Lord Chancellor himself. During the time I have been dealing with this case, I have never failed to recognise that Mr. Brookes has an impairment of his hearing. I have conceded from the beginning that Mr. Brookes has had this impairment over many years. Such a condition is bound to deteriorate, but there was no suggestion that the defect from which Mr. Brookes suffered was an impediment to the exercise of his duties, until about September, 1969.
Mr. Brookes was then approached by one of his fellow magistrates, a Mrs. Battle, who suggested that he ought not to stand for re-election as chairman of the bench. He did not accept this advice. He then received a letter from the clerk of the court from which it appears that the clerk had had a discussion with Mrs. Battle. It is my view that the initiative came from the clerk,


even before Mrs. Battle talked to Mr. Brookes. He had had a word with Mrs. Battle and he again advised Mr. Brookes not to retire, not to come off the Bench because the letter made it clear that, provided Mr. Brookes did not stand for election as chairman, there would be no reason why he should not continue to sit.
If his hearing was so defective that it constituted an impediment to Mr. Brookes in his hearing of cases he was no more entitled to sit as a magistrate than as chairman of the bench. But that was not the suggestion. I have the letter—and no doubt the Solicitor-General has a copy—in which it is suggested that Mr. Brookes should not stand for re-election but should continue as a magistrate.
Mr. Brookes did not take the advice of the clerk of the court. After a short time the election for chairman of the bench took place, and Mr. Brookes was elected by his fellow-magistrates—who are as good judges as anybody else of his fitness to do his job, and his physical capacity to do so.
It is rather significant that in the letter Mr. Russell Jessop—the clerk of the court—sent to Mr. Brookes suggesting that he might decide not to stand for re-election as chairman it was also drawn to Mr. Brookes's attention that he had become my political agent, and that his position was therefore out of accord with the wishes of the Lord Chancellor in respect of legal agents and magistrates. Mr. Brookes had not become my political agent; he had become honorary secretary of the West Gloucestershire Divisional Labour Party and was quite entitled to pursue that position and remain a magistrate; indeed, when Mr. Brookes, in a subsequent level of correspondence, told the clerk to the court that he was wrong in relation to the parliamentary situation, and said that he would have a chat with me and draw my attention to the matter, Mr. Brookes received what I consider to be an impertinent and impudent letter from the clerk. He suggested that Mr. Brookes had no right to discuss anything at all with a person such as myself. In fact, Mr. Brookes had said that he was going to discuss some other matters with me and would draw my attention to that part of the letter.
Mr. Brookes at that time was asked by the divisional Labour Party to discuss with me the question of wage earners on the Coleford bench—of which there was, and still is, a paucity—as a result of a resolution passed by the divisional Labour Party. I subsequently discussed that matter with the then Lord Chancellor. I am afraid that the clerk to the court is slightly biased about Labour people and Labour magistrates.
Mr. Brookes heard nothing further from September or October, 1969, until 20th July, 1970, when he received a letter from the Lord Chancellor's Office drawing his attention to his deafness and asking him to stand down. Mr. Brookes came to see me and I advised him to write to the Lord Chancellor's Office pointing out that I should be writing to the Lord Chancellor—which I did. I asked Mr. Brookes to tell the Lord Chancellor that I was dealing with the matter and to ask whether it could be left in abeyance at that time.
I wrote to the Lord Chancellor asking to discuss the matter with him, because I felt that if the sole problem was Mr. Brooke's deafness, the advice which the clerk to the court ought to have given to Mr. Brookes was to go to somebody for an examination and possibly a deaf aid.
As I say, I wrote to the Lord Chancellor asking whether he would see me to discuss the position, but there was a delay in those discussions. The delay was not my fault. The discussions did not take place for some weeks because the Lord Chancellor wrote to me saying that as he was going away on holiday I should write to him again in September.
I went to see the Lord Chancellor about this case on Wednesday, 23rd September. I have met many Ministers in the course of the years I have been in this House. As a member of the last Administration I met many hon. Members from both sides of this House. But I never remember an experience like the one when I went to see the Lord Chancellor. There is a saying that one can cut the atmosphere with a knife. From the moment that I went into that room to see the Lord Chancellor I felt that there was an icy atmosphere which was certainly not conducive to any real discussion of the problem.
I persisted with the discussion. I had to reiterate and reiterate my case. To cut a long story short, I proposed to the Lord Chancellor that Mr. Brookes should provide, either direct or through myself, a certificate that his hearing was perfect within normal tolerances by reason of having acquired a hearing aid and that, until that time, Mr. Brookes should not sit on the bench.
I do not think that anyone could fault such a suggestion, particularly when the man concerned has spent the whole of his adult life in the service of the community in which he lives and has been a member of the bench for 29 years.
Mr. Brookes was never told who charged him with having badly impaired hearing. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor had no medical evidence, and he rejected the only opportunity of obtaining medical evidence of any kind.
The Lord Chancellor said that he would reflect on the matter. But within hours I received in my room in this House a copy of a letter which I suspect had been written before I saw the Lord Chancellor. There was no reflection. I was convinced—I told the Lord Chancellor so in a subsequent letter—that he had made up his mind before I saw him and was not going to budge from the decision which he had taken. I think that the Lord Chancellor was absolutely determined, although he is in charge of the judiciary, not to give fair play, nor justice, to this man. If he had wanted to give him justice, he could at least have given him the opportunity of providing medical evidence pointing one way or the other. If the impediment was that he could not hear, then, provided that he had a hearing aid which brought his hearing up to a reasonable tolerance, and provided, also, that he did not sit until he had that hearing aid, there was no possible objection to his sitting on the bench.
There is one other aspect of the case about which I am acutely disturbed. As a result of my meeting with the Lord Chancellor, he offered Mr. Brookes one of two alternatives. He could either go on to the supplemental list, or he could remain a magistrate until the end of the year provided he did not perform any magisterial duties.
There was correspondence between Mr. Brookes and the Lord Chancellor, and

the Lord Chancellor agreed to allow Mr. Brookes to consult me as to what attitude he should take in this matter, provided that Mr. Brookes did not sit as a magistrate in the meantime, which he was prepared to do. On 5th October, before we were able to finalise the position, Mr. Brookes received a telephone call from the clerk's department asking him to go into court on 7th October to take some depositions, which would mean that Mr. Brookes would not sit in a judicial capacity. Mr. Brookes attended the court for the sole purpose of taking depositions, but after his arrival there the clerk switched another case into his court and he was foolish enough to adjudicate on it.
I say that he was foolish enough to do that, because the case was heard on 7th October, and by 2 o'clock on 8th October the Lord Chancellor's office was ringing Mr. Brookes' home to try to get hold of him. I know that clerks report the presence of magistrates in court, but they do not so do on the day that they are sitting so that the Lord Chancellor can get the information the next day, and, unless there is some tangible evidence to disprove it, I am convinced that Mr. Brookes was enveigled into court to take depositions and then there was deliberately placed before him an additional case so that he had to hear it, which was against the Lord Chancellor's wishes, and by this means they got him off the bench.
I should like an inquiry to be held into the circumstances leading up to the attendance of Mr. Brookes at court on 7th October, and how it was that the Lord Chancellor's office knew on 8th October that he had sat the previous day. If justice can be obtained by raising matters in the House, the Solicitor-General should ask the Lord Chancellor to allow Mr. Brookes to be put back on the Commission so that he can retire honourably and gracefully and not be humiliated in this way.

12.35 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): It is obviously a matter of regret that a magistrate who has given such long service should have left the Commission in the circumstances that we are discussing, from whatever point of view one looks at it. But, because of the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put the case on behalf of Mr. Brookes, it is most


important that the facts should be made known so that it is plain that, in the regrettable circumstances, my right hon. and noble Friend was left with no alternative.
The tragedy arises possibly from the way in which the hon. Gentleman and perhaps others have chosen to see this sad story as a matter of, as the hon. Gentleman put it,
… nasty, mean, vindictive political spite.
This gentleman, who has given distinguished service, appears to have been swept up in some kind of conspiracy theory of politics which the hon. Gentleman still advances. This is remote from the truth. It is because the case has been put in that way that it is difficult to make any kind of sympathetic response—

Mr. Loughlin: I did not put it in that way until the action was taken.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has taken 20 of the 30 minutes available for this debate. I must insist that what the hon. Gentleman says is remote from the truth.
It is true that Mr. Brookes was chairman, and that he was due to retire to the supplemental list on 1st January next year. But there are other matters relevant to the Lord Chancellor's action. The first is the very clear warning and enunciation in paragraph 136 of the Report of the last Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace, which reads:
The other physical infirmity to which we must refer is deafness. It has been made plain to us that there is too often justification for the complaint that some justices remain on the bench although they suffer from this infirmity to an extent which prevents them from fully hearing or correctly appreciating the evidence of witnesses and the submissions of advocates. The effect on the administration of justice and the prestige of the bench is deplorable. It is notorious that those who are afflicted with this infirmity are apt to shrink from confessing it even to themselves.
It makes plain that there should be no hesitation about reporting such matters to the Lord Chancellor.
That is the background to the duty and responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend and his predecessor to make sure that standards are upheld and to ensure proper respect for the service given by the people whom he has to consider.
The matters advanced by the hon. Gentleman, the conversation with Mrs.

Battle in September, 1969, and the letter written by the clerk to the justices at or about the same time, were unknown to my right hon. and noble Friend or to his predecessor or to anyone in his Department. They might suggest to an impartial observer that one or other or both of these people were getting concerned about the progressive development of Mr. Brookes's impaired hearing. But they had nothing to do with this decision.
The case first came to the notice of the Department in May of this year, during the time of the previous Administration, from a responsible and confidential source. It had nothing to do with those whom the hon. Gentleman has identified. As is customary, it was referred to the advisory committee for the county, which made its own confidential inquiries through more than one independent source. It became apparent, unfortunately, that the criticism of Mr. Brookes's hearing capacity was well founded and that he suffered from impaired hearing to an extent detrimental to the performance of his duties.
Again in accordance with custom, on 20th July of this year he was sent a very courteous letter from the Department of my right hon. and noble Friend suggesting, as is usual in such cases, that he might like to consider a transfer to the supplemental list for the last four months of his service, since this incapacity was said to exist.
The hon. Gentleman requested an interview with the Lord Chancellor at the end of July. He accepted that that should take place after the holiday of my right hon. and noble Friend. After that, my right hon. and noble Friend wrote to the hon. Gentleman saying that, in view of what had been said, Mr. Brookes would be well advised not to sit in the meanwhile. That was noted by the hon. Gentleman at the time. That was at the beginning of August. That was acknowledged by Mr. Brookes. In the middle of August he wrote again to one of those in my right hon. Friend's Department and the reply came back on 18th August, setting out again what Mr. Brookes had been told through the hon. Gentleman—that if there was any question of his hearing being less than perfect he would be well advised not to sit for the time being—

Mr. Loughlin: For the sake of accuracy—

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman only allowed me 10 minutes—

Mr. Loughlin: The accuracy is that it was agreed that the matter should be left in abeyance until I met the Lord Chancellor.

The Solicitor-General: There was no matter of agreement of that kind. Mr. Brookes wrote:
My I take it that your letter should be kept in abeyance?
That was on 13th August, and on 18th August, the matter was again made clear, that he would be well advised not to sit for the time being. An interview took place on 23rd September and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it was only then, for the first time, that my right hon. and noble Friend learned of any connection politically between Mr. Brookes and the hon. Gentleman.
It was made plain at that interview—I cannot deal with it in more detail in view of the shortness of time allowed me—that, notwithstanding the short period to go, because of Mr. Brookes's disability, the Lord Chancellor was not prepared to let him sit for the remainder of the year, that he was prepared to let him be transferred to the Supplemental List, and in a letter couched in the most courteous terms on 23rd September—

Mr. Loughlin: That is not true.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has allowed me 10 of the 30 minutes in which to reply to his points on what would be an important matter—

Mr. Loughlin: But this is the point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. Friend himself wrote to Mr. Brookes on 23rd September saying that he had carefully considered the matter after discussion with the hon. Gentleman:
I must say how sorry I am to learn that, after your lengthy service to the bench, you have been seriously handicapped in your hearing, and I quite understand what a wrench it must be for you to tear yourself away from the Chairmanship, particularly as, in any event, you

would have to be placed on the Supplemental List from the Chairmanship very shortly. Nevertheles, I am afraid that I must tell you that it would not be consistent with my duties as Lord Chancellor to permit you to continue to sit in your present state of health.
My right hon. and noble Friend went on to give the two alternatives—either transfer to the Supplemental List or remaining on the full list for the remainder of the year so long as he did not sit, and added:
The object of this is to make it plain that you have well earned the thanks of the County of Gloucester and of this Department for your services, but I cannot permit you to sit further in court and would be grateful to you if you would let me know by return which of the two options you would prefer me to take.
That was a fair and courteous presentation of the options.
Mr. Brookes asked whether it could wait until he discussed it with the hon. Gentleman. He received a reply that it could, but that in the meanwhile he would be well advised not to sit, and on 1st October another letter was sent to Mr. Brookes reminding him of the proposition that he should not sit and of the extent to which my right hon. and hon. Friend had to be satisfied of his capacity if he was to continue doing so. So for at least a fourth time it was made clear that he should not sit in the meantime.
Nevertheless, sadly, Mr. Brookes did sit on 29th September and 7th October. There was no question of the clerk of the court, whom the hon. Gentleman sought to criticise, knowing any of the background of this at all, certainly no suggestion of any trap having been laid. The one person who knew that he had been advised many times against sitting on and had been given the option of either not sitting till the end of the year or going on the Supplemental List was Mr. Brookes himself. It is a matter of the utmost regret that he continued to sit, as he did, but this matter has nothing to do with political plotting or inveigling of anyone. The magistrate in question, unhappily, did not respond with the wisdom which perhaps one would have expected to the repeated advice he received.
My right hon. and noble Friend was left with no alternative, in view of the continued situation but to take the step he did on 8th October and to remove Mr. Brookes from the Commission. I


join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the service that Mr. Brookes has done over a number of years on this bench, but the conclusion of that career arises, I repeat, not through political plotting of any kind—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Adjourned at a quarter to One o'clock.